User login
Was additional testing for rectal cancer required?
<court>Middlesex County (Mass) Superior Court</court>
In a 65-year-old woman undergoing a routine gynecologic examination, a stool guaiac test was positive for blood. (A stool guaiac shows blood somewhere in the gastrointestinal track—be it in the esophagus, stomach, small or large bowel, or rectum.) Her physician attributed this to hemorrhoids and ordered no further tests.
Nine months later, the patient was diagnosed with stage III rectal cancer that required chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.
In suing, the woman claimed that the standard of care mandated the performance of further studies to evaluate a positive stool guaiac. She alleged that because this was not performed, her diagnosis was delayed and her chance of survival impaired.
The Ob/Gyn argued that a follow-up study was not required in patients undergoing regular stool guaiac exams, and maintained that an earlier diagnosis would not have altered her chance for survival. In addition, she noted that at the time of trial the plaintiff had been cancerfree for more than 4 years.
- The jury returned a defense verdict.
The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts (www.verdictslaska.com). While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.
<court>Middlesex County (Mass) Superior Court</court>
In a 65-year-old woman undergoing a routine gynecologic examination, a stool guaiac test was positive for blood. (A stool guaiac shows blood somewhere in the gastrointestinal track—be it in the esophagus, stomach, small or large bowel, or rectum.) Her physician attributed this to hemorrhoids and ordered no further tests.
Nine months later, the patient was diagnosed with stage III rectal cancer that required chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.
In suing, the woman claimed that the standard of care mandated the performance of further studies to evaluate a positive stool guaiac. She alleged that because this was not performed, her diagnosis was delayed and her chance of survival impaired.
The Ob/Gyn argued that a follow-up study was not required in patients undergoing regular stool guaiac exams, and maintained that an earlier diagnosis would not have altered her chance for survival. In addition, she noted that at the time of trial the plaintiff had been cancerfree for more than 4 years.
- The jury returned a defense verdict.
The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts (www.verdictslaska.com). While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.
<court>Middlesex County (Mass) Superior Court</court>
In a 65-year-old woman undergoing a routine gynecologic examination, a stool guaiac test was positive for blood. (A stool guaiac shows blood somewhere in the gastrointestinal track—be it in the esophagus, stomach, small or large bowel, or rectum.) Her physician attributed this to hemorrhoids and ordered no further tests.
Nine months later, the patient was diagnosed with stage III rectal cancer that required chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery.
In suing, the woman claimed that the standard of care mandated the performance of further studies to evaluate a positive stool guaiac. She alleged that because this was not performed, her diagnosis was delayed and her chance of survival impaired.
The Ob/Gyn argued that a follow-up study was not required in patients undergoing regular stool guaiac exams, and maintained that an earlier diagnosis would not have altered her chance for survival. In addition, she noted that at the time of trial the plaintiff had been cancerfree for more than 4 years.
- The jury returned a defense verdict.
The cases presented here were compiled by Lewis L. Laska, editor of Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts (www.verdictslaska.com). While there are instances when the available information is incomplete, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation.
Colon, ileum damage follow hysterectomy
A 41-year-old woman presented to her gynecologist with a large cyst encapsulating one of her ovaries. A hysterectomy was performed. Three days later, the patient developed sepsis, with green matter leaking from her vagina. An examination revealed a vaginal fistula.
During an exploratory laparotomy, a general surgeon discovered 1 hole in the ileum and 2 holes in the transverse colon. The patient underwent a colon resection and a colostomy. She subsequently had a colostomy reversal. She claimed that she still experiences diarrhea, cramps, and dehydration, and that she can no longer work standing up, which her job as a surgical technician requires. In addition, she was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder following the experience.
In suing, the patient claimed the surgeon was negligent for failing to check the integrity of the colon and ileum before closing the operative site. She noted that she had extensive adhesions due to previous surgery, and that she had made the physician aware of their presence. This knowledge, she claimed, should have prompted him to run a thorough check. Had the damage been discovered during the hysterectomy, she maintained, the consequences would have been less severe.
The doctor maintained that he inspected the bowel where he lysed adhesions, and found no leaks. He noted that injury may have occurred independent of negligence.
- The jury returned a defense verdict.
A 41-year-old woman presented to her gynecologist with a large cyst encapsulating one of her ovaries. A hysterectomy was performed. Three days later, the patient developed sepsis, with green matter leaking from her vagina. An examination revealed a vaginal fistula.
During an exploratory laparotomy, a general surgeon discovered 1 hole in the ileum and 2 holes in the transverse colon. The patient underwent a colon resection and a colostomy. She subsequently had a colostomy reversal. She claimed that she still experiences diarrhea, cramps, and dehydration, and that she can no longer work standing up, which her job as a surgical technician requires. In addition, she was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder following the experience.
In suing, the patient claimed the surgeon was negligent for failing to check the integrity of the colon and ileum before closing the operative site. She noted that she had extensive adhesions due to previous surgery, and that she had made the physician aware of their presence. This knowledge, she claimed, should have prompted him to run a thorough check. Had the damage been discovered during the hysterectomy, she maintained, the consequences would have been less severe.
The doctor maintained that he inspected the bowel where he lysed adhesions, and found no leaks. He noted that injury may have occurred independent of negligence.
- The jury returned a defense verdict.
A 41-year-old woman presented to her gynecologist with a large cyst encapsulating one of her ovaries. A hysterectomy was performed. Three days later, the patient developed sepsis, with green matter leaking from her vagina. An examination revealed a vaginal fistula.
During an exploratory laparotomy, a general surgeon discovered 1 hole in the ileum and 2 holes in the transverse colon. The patient underwent a colon resection and a colostomy. She subsequently had a colostomy reversal. She claimed that she still experiences diarrhea, cramps, and dehydration, and that she can no longer work standing up, which her job as a surgical technician requires. In addition, she was diagnosed with posttraumatic stress disorder following the experience.
In suing, the patient claimed the surgeon was negligent for failing to check the integrity of the colon and ileum before closing the operative site. She noted that she had extensive adhesions due to previous surgery, and that she had made the physician aware of their presence. This knowledge, she claimed, should have prompted him to run a thorough check. Had the damage been discovered during the hysterectomy, she maintained, the consequences would have been less severe.
The doctor maintained that he inspected the bowel where he lysed adhesions, and found no leaks. He noted that injury may have occurred independent of negligence.
- The jury returned a defense verdict.
Was patient told of abnormal Pap result?
A Pap smear conducted at a routine gynecologic exam revealed abnormal findings; the woman claimed she never received the results.
At her next annual exam, 15 months later, Pap smear testing showed stage III cervical cancer. She died 4 years later at age 34.
In suing, her family maintained that not only did the physician fail to notify the woman of her abnormal findings, but that when she specifically asked office staff about the test results several months later, she was told “not to worry about it.” The plaintiffs maintained the delayed diagnosis led to the woman’s death.
The physician, however, argued that he did in fact speak to the woman about her results, and also notified her via mail of the need for follow-up.
- The jury returned a defense verdict.
A Pap smear conducted at a routine gynecologic exam revealed abnormal findings; the woman claimed she never received the results.
At her next annual exam, 15 months later, Pap smear testing showed stage III cervical cancer. She died 4 years later at age 34.
In suing, her family maintained that not only did the physician fail to notify the woman of her abnormal findings, but that when she specifically asked office staff about the test results several months later, she was told “not to worry about it.” The plaintiffs maintained the delayed diagnosis led to the woman’s death.
The physician, however, argued that he did in fact speak to the woman about her results, and also notified her via mail of the need for follow-up.
- The jury returned a defense verdict.
A Pap smear conducted at a routine gynecologic exam revealed abnormal findings; the woman claimed she never received the results.
At her next annual exam, 15 months later, Pap smear testing showed stage III cervical cancer. She died 4 years later at age 34.
In suing, her family maintained that not only did the physician fail to notify the woman of her abnormal findings, but that when she specifically asked office staff about the test results several months later, she was told “not to worry about it.” The plaintiffs maintained the delayed diagnosis led to the woman’s death.
The physician, however, argued that he did in fact speak to the woman about her results, and also notified her via mail of the need for follow-up.
- The jury returned a defense verdict.
Bathroom visit linked to infant’s brain damage
While in labor at a hospital, a pregnant woman got out of bed to go to the bathroom. The patient was not attached to a monitor at this time. While she was up, the unborn baby developed sudden bradycardia.
When the mother returned, nurses were unable to locate the infant’s heart tones. The woman was given an IV and oxygen, and turned from side to side in an effort to locate the baby’s heartbeat. An internal scalp electrode was started and the doctor was paged.
When the physician arrived, he reportedly performed a vaginal examination, administered terbutaline and informed the patient the delivery would require forceps. Upon delivery, the newborn had Apgar scores of 2 at 1 minute, 6 at 5 minutes, and 7 at 10 minutes. In follow-up, the infant was diagnosed with cerebral palsy.
In suing, the family contended that the infant’s injury was due to the doctor’s failure to attend to the mother during labor. In addition, they claimed that nursing staff failed to inform the physician of ominous fetal monitoring strips in a timely fashion. Further, the family alleged that the mother should not have left the bed and that continuous fetal monitoring should have been used.
The doctor and hospital staff countered that the infant suffered an occult cord prolapse, and that the infant’s injuries would have occurred regardless of whether the mother left the bed or a monitor was attached.
- The jury awarded the plaintiff $6.5 million against the hospital. A defense verdict for the doctor was returned.
While in labor at a hospital, a pregnant woman got out of bed to go to the bathroom. The patient was not attached to a monitor at this time. While she was up, the unborn baby developed sudden bradycardia.
When the mother returned, nurses were unable to locate the infant’s heart tones. The woman was given an IV and oxygen, and turned from side to side in an effort to locate the baby’s heartbeat. An internal scalp electrode was started and the doctor was paged.
When the physician arrived, he reportedly performed a vaginal examination, administered terbutaline and informed the patient the delivery would require forceps. Upon delivery, the newborn had Apgar scores of 2 at 1 minute, 6 at 5 minutes, and 7 at 10 minutes. In follow-up, the infant was diagnosed with cerebral palsy.
In suing, the family contended that the infant’s injury was due to the doctor’s failure to attend to the mother during labor. In addition, they claimed that nursing staff failed to inform the physician of ominous fetal monitoring strips in a timely fashion. Further, the family alleged that the mother should not have left the bed and that continuous fetal monitoring should have been used.
The doctor and hospital staff countered that the infant suffered an occult cord prolapse, and that the infant’s injuries would have occurred regardless of whether the mother left the bed or a monitor was attached.
- The jury awarded the plaintiff $6.5 million against the hospital. A defense verdict for the doctor was returned.
While in labor at a hospital, a pregnant woman got out of bed to go to the bathroom. The patient was not attached to a monitor at this time. While she was up, the unborn baby developed sudden bradycardia.
When the mother returned, nurses were unable to locate the infant’s heart tones. The woman was given an IV and oxygen, and turned from side to side in an effort to locate the baby’s heartbeat. An internal scalp electrode was started and the doctor was paged.
When the physician arrived, he reportedly performed a vaginal examination, administered terbutaline and informed the patient the delivery would require forceps. Upon delivery, the newborn had Apgar scores of 2 at 1 minute, 6 at 5 minutes, and 7 at 10 minutes. In follow-up, the infant was diagnosed with cerebral palsy.
In suing, the family contended that the infant’s injury was due to the doctor’s failure to attend to the mother during labor. In addition, they claimed that nursing staff failed to inform the physician of ominous fetal monitoring strips in a timely fashion. Further, the family alleged that the mother should not have left the bed and that continuous fetal monitoring should have been used.
The doctor and hospital staff countered that the infant suffered an occult cord prolapse, and that the infant’s injuries would have occurred regardless of whether the mother left the bed or a monitor was attached.
- The jury awarded the plaintiff $6.5 million against the hospital. A defense verdict for the doctor was returned.
Did failure to note calcifications delay breast cancer diagnosis?
Twenty-two months after undergoing a mammogram that was reported as normal, a woman in her forties detected a mass in her breast. A biopsy confirmed stage II breast cancer.
In suing, the woman claimed that the radiologist who read her mammogram was negligent for not identifying suspicious calcifications or recommending further evaluation. She argued that the delay in diagnosis allowed the malignancy to advance, thus lowering her life expectancy and making lymph node dissection, chemotherapy, and radiation necessary.
The physician argued that the mass was not visible in the mammogram and that the delay did not have a significant effect on her life expectancy.
- The case settled for $300,000.
Twenty-two months after undergoing a mammogram that was reported as normal, a woman in her forties detected a mass in her breast. A biopsy confirmed stage II breast cancer.
In suing, the woman claimed that the radiologist who read her mammogram was negligent for not identifying suspicious calcifications or recommending further evaluation. She argued that the delay in diagnosis allowed the malignancy to advance, thus lowering her life expectancy and making lymph node dissection, chemotherapy, and radiation necessary.
The physician argued that the mass was not visible in the mammogram and that the delay did not have a significant effect on her life expectancy.
- The case settled for $300,000.
Twenty-two months after undergoing a mammogram that was reported as normal, a woman in her forties detected a mass in her breast. A biopsy confirmed stage II breast cancer.
In suing, the woman claimed that the radiologist who read her mammogram was negligent for not identifying suspicious calcifications or recommending further evaluation. She argued that the delay in diagnosis allowed the malignancy to advance, thus lowering her life expectancy and making lymph node dissection, chemotherapy, and radiation necessary.
The physician argued that the mass was not visible in the mammogram and that the delay did not have a significant effect on her life expectancy.
- The case settled for $300,000.
Did injury at cystectomy lead to need for dialysis?
While removing a large cyst from a 46-year-old diabetic woman, a physician feared he may have cut or ligated the patient’s right ureter. Based on an indigo carmine dye test, however, he determined the ureter remained undamaged.
In the days following the procedure, the patient began to experience back pain, blood in the urine, nausea, fever, elevated creatinine, and other signs of ureteral damage. The physician, however, waited 8 days before consulting with a urologist, who concluded the patient had an obstruction of the right ureter.
Surgery 4 days later revealed the injury was beyond repair, and the patient’s right ureter and right kidney were removed. In the following months, the woman’s overall kidney function declined sharply, and she was ultimately placed on dialysis.
In suing, the woman claimed her physician did not properly assess the status, location, and integrity of the right ureter, and did not appropriately address her postoperative symptoms. She further claimed that the injury accelerated her need for dialysis and thus shortened her life expectancy by 6 to 7 years.
The doctor argued that he did not violate the standard of care, and that the woman’s preexisting renal condition, not the injury, created the need for dialysis. He maintained that the patient’s noncompliance with previous recommendations and a lack of more aggressive medical treatment were also, in part, to blame for the injury.
- The case settled for $3 million.
While removing a large cyst from a 46-year-old diabetic woman, a physician feared he may have cut or ligated the patient’s right ureter. Based on an indigo carmine dye test, however, he determined the ureter remained undamaged.
In the days following the procedure, the patient began to experience back pain, blood in the urine, nausea, fever, elevated creatinine, and other signs of ureteral damage. The physician, however, waited 8 days before consulting with a urologist, who concluded the patient had an obstruction of the right ureter.
Surgery 4 days later revealed the injury was beyond repair, and the patient’s right ureter and right kidney were removed. In the following months, the woman’s overall kidney function declined sharply, and she was ultimately placed on dialysis.
In suing, the woman claimed her physician did not properly assess the status, location, and integrity of the right ureter, and did not appropriately address her postoperative symptoms. She further claimed that the injury accelerated her need for dialysis and thus shortened her life expectancy by 6 to 7 years.
The doctor argued that he did not violate the standard of care, and that the woman’s preexisting renal condition, not the injury, created the need for dialysis. He maintained that the patient’s noncompliance with previous recommendations and a lack of more aggressive medical treatment were also, in part, to blame for the injury.
- The case settled for $3 million.
While removing a large cyst from a 46-year-old diabetic woman, a physician feared he may have cut or ligated the patient’s right ureter. Based on an indigo carmine dye test, however, he determined the ureter remained undamaged.
In the days following the procedure, the patient began to experience back pain, blood in the urine, nausea, fever, elevated creatinine, and other signs of ureteral damage. The physician, however, waited 8 days before consulting with a urologist, who concluded the patient had an obstruction of the right ureter.
Surgery 4 days later revealed the injury was beyond repair, and the patient’s right ureter and right kidney were removed. In the following months, the woman’s overall kidney function declined sharply, and she was ultimately placed on dialysis.
In suing, the woman claimed her physician did not properly assess the status, location, and integrity of the right ureter, and did not appropriately address her postoperative symptoms. She further claimed that the injury accelerated her need for dialysis and thus shortened her life expectancy by 6 to 7 years.
The doctor argued that he did not violate the standard of care, and that the woman’s preexisting renal condition, not the injury, created the need for dialysis. He maintained that the patient’s noncompliance with previous recommendations and a lack of more aggressive medical treatment were also, in part, to blame for the injury.
- The case settled for $3 million.
Towel left in abdomen found 8 years later
After undergoing a total abdominal hysterectomy, a woman in her thirties noted feeling bloated and unwell. She was told these symptoms were not uncommon and was discharged 5 days later.
Eight years following the surgery, a surgical towel was discovered in her abdomen. It was surgically removed.
In suing, the woman alleged that the doctor and staff involved with the hysterectomy were negligent in using a towel without a radio-opaque marker. She further argued that the clinicians did not properly count the materials used in the procedure.
The doctor denied responsibility, claiming that the nurses or technicians were responsible for accounting for all towels. The defendants also alleged that the towel may have been left in her abdomen during earlier cesarean sections, and noted that any injuries stemming from the towel were unlikely to be serious.
- The case against the hospital settled for $150,000. The claim against the doctor went to trial; a jury found the hospital personnel responsible. The plaintiff has appealed the verdict.
After undergoing a total abdominal hysterectomy, a woman in her thirties noted feeling bloated and unwell. She was told these symptoms were not uncommon and was discharged 5 days later.
Eight years following the surgery, a surgical towel was discovered in her abdomen. It was surgically removed.
In suing, the woman alleged that the doctor and staff involved with the hysterectomy were negligent in using a towel without a radio-opaque marker. She further argued that the clinicians did not properly count the materials used in the procedure.
The doctor denied responsibility, claiming that the nurses or technicians were responsible for accounting for all towels. The defendants also alleged that the towel may have been left in her abdomen during earlier cesarean sections, and noted that any injuries stemming from the towel were unlikely to be serious.
- The case against the hospital settled for $150,000. The claim against the doctor went to trial; a jury found the hospital personnel responsible. The plaintiff has appealed the verdict.
After undergoing a total abdominal hysterectomy, a woman in her thirties noted feeling bloated and unwell. She was told these symptoms were not uncommon and was discharged 5 days later.
Eight years following the surgery, a surgical towel was discovered in her abdomen. It was surgically removed.
In suing, the woman alleged that the doctor and staff involved with the hysterectomy were negligent in using a towel without a radio-opaque marker. She further argued that the clinicians did not properly count the materials used in the procedure.
The doctor denied responsibility, claiming that the nurses or technicians were responsible for accounting for all towels. The defendants also alleged that the towel may have been left in her abdomen during earlier cesarean sections, and noted that any injuries stemming from the towel were unlikely to be serious.
- The case against the hospital settled for $150,000. The claim against the doctor went to trial; a jury found the hospital personnel responsible. The plaintiff has appealed the verdict.
Did misuse of forceps cause dyspareunia?
The day after delivering a healthy baby boy with the assistance of forceps, a 28-year-old woman complained of severe vulvar pain. Her physician assured her that vaginal swelling and bruising were common following forceps delivery. A few weeks later, the woman was seen by the physician’s partner, who observed the injury and referred the patient for further treatment. She was ultimately diagnosed with pudendal nerve damage, and underwent a variety of pain-control procedures by a number of different physicians.
The plaintiff alleged that misuse and misapplication of the forceps caused her injury, which has led to chronic vulvar pain and dyspareunia.
The defendants maintained that the delivery was carried out appropriately, and claimed the woman’s injury was due to the child moving through the birth canal, not to the forceps.
- The jury returned a defense verdict.
The day after delivering a healthy baby boy with the assistance of forceps, a 28-year-old woman complained of severe vulvar pain. Her physician assured her that vaginal swelling and bruising were common following forceps delivery. A few weeks later, the woman was seen by the physician’s partner, who observed the injury and referred the patient for further treatment. She was ultimately diagnosed with pudendal nerve damage, and underwent a variety of pain-control procedures by a number of different physicians.
The plaintiff alleged that misuse and misapplication of the forceps caused her injury, which has led to chronic vulvar pain and dyspareunia.
The defendants maintained that the delivery was carried out appropriately, and claimed the woman’s injury was due to the child moving through the birth canal, not to the forceps.
- The jury returned a defense verdict.
The day after delivering a healthy baby boy with the assistance of forceps, a 28-year-old woman complained of severe vulvar pain. Her physician assured her that vaginal swelling and bruising were common following forceps delivery. A few weeks later, the woman was seen by the physician’s partner, who observed the injury and referred the patient for further treatment. She was ultimately diagnosed with pudendal nerve damage, and underwent a variety of pain-control procedures by a number of different physicians.
The plaintiff alleged that misuse and misapplication of the forceps caused her injury, which has led to chronic vulvar pain and dyspareunia.
The defendants maintained that the delivery was carried out appropriately, and claimed the woman’s injury was due to the child moving through the birth canal, not to the forceps.
- The jury returned a defense verdict.
Erb’s palsy, neurologic problems follow ‘traumatic delivery’
Following 3 days of irregular labor pains, a woman at 42 weeks’ gestation underwent labor induction. Thirteen hours after initiating the induction, the doctor recorded that the patient was fully dilated.
The physician noted shoulder dystocia after the mother had been pushing for 3 hours. After numerous attempts to extricate the shoulder proved unsuccessful, various staff members applied suprapubic pressure while the physician attempted to deliver the infant.
Upon delivery, the child was limp and flaccid; exhibited no respiration or reflexes; had an abnormal heart rate; and suffered a fractured right humerus, swelling, bruising, and abrasions on his face and head. The medical note indicated “a prolonged labor and a traumatic delivery.” The child now suffers from left Erb’s palsy, as well as cognitive, language, and attention problems.
The plaintiffs alleged the doctor should have opted for a cesarean delivery, and contended that he administered too much oxytocin during induction and used excessive force at delivery. In addition, they argued that the hospital attempted to cover up the events of the delivery, noting that the final 4 hours of fetal heart rate tracings and the last 90 minutes of labor progress notes were missing from the hospital chart.
The defendants maintained that a trial of labor was appropriate, and that the brachial plexus injury stemmed from the dystocia, not excessive force. They also argued the child did not suffer brain damage at the time of delivery.
- The jury awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million against the physician. The hospital was found not liable.
Following 3 days of irregular labor pains, a woman at 42 weeks’ gestation underwent labor induction. Thirteen hours after initiating the induction, the doctor recorded that the patient was fully dilated.
The physician noted shoulder dystocia after the mother had been pushing for 3 hours. After numerous attempts to extricate the shoulder proved unsuccessful, various staff members applied suprapubic pressure while the physician attempted to deliver the infant.
Upon delivery, the child was limp and flaccid; exhibited no respiration or reflexes; had an abnormal heart rate; and suffered a fractured right humerus, swelling, bruising, and abrasions on his face and head. The medical note indicated “a prolonged labor and a traumatic delivery.” The child now suffers from left Erb’s palsy, as well as cognitive, language, and attention problems.
The plaintiffs alleged the doctor should have opted for a cesarean delivery, and contended that he administered too much oxytocin during induction and used excessive force at delivery. In addition, they argued that the hospital attempted to cover up the events of the delivery, noting that the final 4 hours of fetal heart rate tracings and the last 90 minutes of labor progress notes were missing from the hospital chart.
The defendants maintained that a trial of labor was appropriate, and that the brachial plexus injury stemmed from the dystocia, not excessive force. They also argued the child did not suffer brain damage at the time of delivery.
- The jury awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million against the physician. The hospital was found not liable.
Following 3 days of irregular labor pains, a woman at 42 weeks’ gestation underwent labor induction. Thirteen hours after initiating the induction, the doctor recorded that the patient was fully dilated.
The physician noted shoulder dystocia after the mother had been pushing for 3 hours. After numerous attempts to extricate the shoulder proved unsuccessful, various staff members applied suprapubic pressure while the physician attempted to deliver the infant.
Upon delivery, the child was limp and flaccid; exhibited no respiration or reflexes; had an abnormal heart rate; and suffered a fractured right humerus, swelling, bruising, and abrasions on his face and head. The medical note indicated “a prolonged labor and a traumatic delivery.” The child now suffers from left Erb’s palsy, as well as cognitive, language, and attention problems.
The plaintiffs alleged the doctor should have opted for a cesarean delivery, and contended that he administered too much oxytocin during induction and used excessive force at delivery. In addition, they argued that the hospital attempted to cover up the events of the delivery, noting that the final 4 hours of fetal heart rate tracings and the last 90 minutes of labor progress notes were missing from the hospital chart.
The defendants maintained that a trial of labor was appropriate, and that the brachial plexus injury stemmed from the dystocia, not excessive force. They also argued the child did not suffer brain damage at the time of delivery.
- The jury awarded the plaintiffs $2.5 million against the physician. The hospital was found not liable.
Was doctor negligent in episiotomy repair?
An episiotomy performed on a 28-year-old woman during delivery extended into a perineal laceration. Five days following the delivery, the repair broke, causing the woman fecal and gas incontinence. She required follow-up surgery 7 months later to repair the damage.
The woman alleged the doctor was negligent in the repair, and that as a result of this negligence 2 subsequent pregnancies had to be delivered by cesarean.
The physician contended that her injury was a known risk of the procedure. In addition, he suggested the broken repair was caused by factors other than the quality of his repair at birth.
- The jury returned a defense verdict.
An episiotomy performed on a 28-year-old woman during delivery extended into a perineal laceration. Five days following the delivery, the repair broke, causing the woman fecal and gas incontinence. She required follow-up surgery 7 months later to repair the damage.
The woman alleged the doctor was negligent in the repair, and that as a result of this negligence 2 subsequent pregnancies had to be delivered by cesarean.
The physician contended that her injury was a known risk of the procedure. In addition, he suggested the broken repair was caused by factors other than the quality of his repair at birth.
- The jury returned a defense verdict.
An episiotomy performed on a 28-year-old woman during delivery extended into a perineal laceration. Five days following the delivery, the repair broke, causing the woman fecal and gas incontinence. She required follow-up surgery 7 months later to repair the damage.
The woman alleged the doctor was negligent in the repair, and that as a result of this negligence 2 subsequent pregnancies had to be delivered by cesarean.
The physician contended that her injury was a known risk of the procedure. In addition, he suggested the broken repair was caused by factors other than the quality of his repair at birth.
- The jury returned a defense verdict.