Articles Posted in Erbs Palsy

Published on:

A woman gave birth sometime on October 7, 2005 at a college hospital. An obstetrician attended the birth but an obstetrical resident was the doctor who personally delivered the baby.

The woman’s delivery progressed well but her pushing had to be temporarily stopped because when the baby girl’s head was delivered, it was seen that the umbilical cord was wrapped around the baby’s head. The resident clamped the umbilical cord and cut it and then delivered the rest of the baby. The child’s head presented itself with the back of her head facing the right side of her mother’s body. The mother suffered a vaginal laceration with the birth because no episiotomy (surgical cut in the vagina to allow easier delivery of the baby) was made by the resident. They then repaired the vaginal laceration.

After the birth, the pediatrician noted a weakness in the right arm of the baby. The diagnosis was Erb’s palsy as a consequence of the baby’s shoulder getting caught in the mother’s pubic bone. With the mother’s uterus pushing the baby out and the resident pulling the baby out, the baby’s right shoulder was stretched and suffered a fracture and the nerves were pulled and injured resulting in muscle weakness in the right shoulder and right arm.

The woman brought a suit in damages for the medical malpractice of the attending obstetrician, the obstetrical resident, and the college hospital. The woman claims that the doctors’ negligence and deviation from accepted medical practice directly caused the injury to the baby.

The two doctors and the college hospital filed a motion for summary judgment. In support of their motion, they proffered the expert opinion of an obstetrical expert who claimed that the shoulder dystocia of the right shoulder could not have occurred seeing as the child was delivered with the left shoulder passing under the mother’s pubic bone. If shoulder dystocia did occur, it should have occurred on the left shoulder and not on the right shoulder as the right shoulder did not pass near the mother’s pubic bone. The expert stressed that if shoulder dystocia was noted, it would have been noted by the doctors in the charts and records of birth. The expert claimed that the shoulder dystocia of the right shoulder could have been caused by the force of the mother’s uterus as it contracted to expel the baby. In this case, the expert opined, the injury to the child was not caused by any medical malpractice on the part of the doctors, instead, it can be attributed to the action of the mother’s own uterus.

The woman opposed the doctor’s medical expert from Nassau and Suffolk by producing her own medical expert who claimed that the resident was inexperienced in delivering babies. It is possible, according to the mother’s expert, that the resident did not notice that the shoulder became stuck because the resident was too busy removing the umbilical cord around the child’s neck. The delivery of the rest of the baby was stalled and restarted. This was done by the resident telling the mother to begin pushing once more and at the same time, the resident began pulling and pushing the baby in a downward and outward motion. This is most probably when the right shoulder became overly stretched and the nerves on the right shoulder stretched and injured as well resulting in the weakness of the right shoulder. This also explains, according to the expert, why neither the resident nor the attending obstetrician failed to chart the shoulder dystocia. The mother’s expert also claimed that shoulder dystocia due to the action of the mother’s uterus is a zero possibility.

The only question before the Court is whether or not the motion for summary judgment should be granted.

The Court that in this case where the expert testimony of the doctors and the expert testimony of the mother are opposed on all material points, then an issue of material fact has been raised that must be determined only by a jury. The Court then denied the motion for summary judgment and remanded the case for trial.
Continue reading

Published on:

The complainants seek damages for the infant’s right arm paralysis injury (Erbs palsy brachial plexus). The accused parties are the hospital, the obstetrical resident who delivered the infant and the attending physician who was present at the delivery.

The complainants allege that the doctors failed to properly manage and perform the delivery of the infant, failed to properly detect and manage shoulder dystocia, failed to perform rotational maneuvers to deliver the infant, failed to properly position the mother for delivery, improperly performed delivery by applying excessive traction to the infant’s head, failed to perform an episiotomy in the presence of a shoulder dystocia, failed to place the mother in the necessary birth position and failed to perform the necessary birth maneuver, and improperly performed maneuvers at delivery which resulted in injury to the brachial plexus nerve. The doctors on the other hand, claim that the birth injury sustained by the infant is inconsistent with the records of the labor and delivery. It was not caused by a medical malpractice and instead, was the result of maternal fetal forces.

In support of their motion for summary judgment, the doctors submit the affirmation of obstetrics and gynecology physician board certified who reviewed the pertinent medical records, pleadings and deposition transcripts. The board certified physician observes that the mother’s pre-natal history was benign and she had no maternal risk factors for shoulder dystocia. She also observes that the mother did not have an abnormal pelvic anatomy, gestational diabetes, was not post-date. The records revealed that the mother had no previous shoulder dystocia delivery and was not extremely short of stature. The board certified physician also pronounces that there was no assisted vaginal delivery or protracted active phase of first stage labor or second stage labor. The delivery note also indicated that the child was delivered with a non-reducible nuchal cord wrapped once around the neck and was clamped and cut upon the head’s delivery. The nuchal cord is significant because in its presence, the mother was directed to stop pushing after delivery of the head in order to have the cord cut prior to the delivery of the child’s body. Based upon the charting, a shoulder dystocia was not encountered. Had there been any complications or the need for maneuvers to be undertaken because shoulder dystocia was encountered, or for any other reason, it would have been documented in the physician’s notes, nursing notes, or pediatric notes. The board certified physician strongly claims that absence of any of such documentation is clear and convincing evidence that maneuvers and/or excessive traction were not used and shoulder dystocia not encountered. The work-up from admission to delivery was well within the standards of care, and there were no departures from the standard of care from the time of delivery through the delivery itself, based upon the records. Following the delivery, the mother had a first-degree vaginal laceration and was repaired with 3.0 chromic sutures, which indicates that it was a superficial laceration without muscle involvement and it was not, as indicated in the complaint that a trapped shoulder had to be delivered.

The board certified physician cites medical literature that makes it quite clear that there can be an intrauterine origin of obstetrical brachial plexus, unrelated to lateral traction during delivery. The literature states that the right arm paralysis injury can occur without associated shoulder dystocia and maternal forces are the most likely cause of both situations with and without dystocia. Some articles indicate that shoulder dystocia can occur from driving force rather than traction forces. Other studies conclude that intrauterine maladaptation may play a role in brachial plexus impairment and brachial plexus impairment should not be taken as legitimate evidence of birth injury.

The board certified physician in Manhattan and Long Island concludes that whatever injuries allegedly occurred in the complaint have occurred in the absence of any deviation or departure from the standard of medical care and in the absence of shoulder dystocia. The only explanation that could support the alleged Erb’s palsy, as the literature indicates are maternal fetal forces and not shoulder dystocia and/or the intervention by any physicians.

The requisite elements of proof in a medical malpractice action are a deviation or departure from accepted medical practice and evidence that such departure was a proximate cause of injury or damage. Accordingly, the accused parties in a medical malpractice action are able to fulfill their legitimate burden of establishing their entitlement to judgment without trial by bringing forward expert opinion evidence that they did not deviate from good and accepted medical practice in their treatment of the complainant. In opposition, the complainant must submit a physician’s affidavit attesting of the doctor’s departure from accepted practice, which departure was a competent producing cause of the injury in order to defeat the doctors’ motion.

It is well settled that judgment without trial is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action when the parties bring forward conflicting medical expert opinions as such credibility issues can only be resolved by a jury.

The conflicting medical expert opinions submitted by the parties preclude the grant of summary judgment to the doctors. The doctors rely primarily upon the expert affirmation of the board certified physician to establish legitimate proof that they did not deviate from good an accepted medical practice in their care and treatment of the complainant during labor and delivery. The board certified physician’s affirmation focuses on the lack of evidence that a shoulder dystocia occurred in the labor and delivery, and on medical literature which supports the proposition that the Erb’s palsy that allegedly occurred was the result of maternal fetal forces rather than improper excessive traction on the infant. Although the court finds that such affirmation is sufficient to establish the doctors’ legitimate proof case, it also determines that the expert affirmation proffered by the complainant raise issues of fact sufficient to support denial of the instant motion for summary judgment.

The complainant’s expert pronounces in his affirmation that Erb’s palsy in the absence of shoulder dystocia is an extremely rare event, and that the medical literature which he has reviewed indicate that the chances that an Erb’s palsy was caused by intrauterine events approaches zero. He opines that when such rarest of events is documented, there is the presence of macrosomia and a prolonged second stage of labor, neither of which was present in the case. He also opines that he has a doubt as to the validity of the charting, pointing to the discrepancy as to whether the vaginal laceration was first or second degree, and that he believes that the charting does not equate with the condition of the baby at birth. Contrary to the assertion of the doctors’ counsel, it is not a speculative opinion, since the complainant’s expert opines that the obstetrical resident failed to recognize that the shoulder became impacted and applied excessive traction. Further, the complainant’s expert offers a cogent opinion why the Erb’s palsy manifested on the right shoulder, rather than the left.
Such conflicting expert affirmations necessitate resolution by the finder of fact. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment by the obstetrical resident, the attending physician and the hospital is denied. The foregoing constitutes the decision and order of the court.
Continue reading

Published on:

On 23 January 1985, plaintiff was born by caesarean section at North Central Bronx Hospital, an affiliate hospital of defendant HHC. The infant plaintiff’s parents are citizens of Guyana and the mother has had intermittent residence in the Bronx. Apparently, the caesarean section was necessitated by fetal distress arising from the umbilical cord being wrapped around his neck. Upon delivery, there was evidence of meconium and he received low Apgar scores. Hospital records indicate that he had suffered birth injuries such as birth asphyxia, meconium respiration and additional ailments (birth injury accidents). Plaintiff was discharged on 28 January 1985. Discharge memoranda indicate follow-up appointments and a referral to the Visiting Nursing Services. There is some evidence that the mother was provided with a set of appointment papers for a follow-up clinic appointment, but the mother states that she received no instructions after discharge. She recalls that a nurse visited once a week for six weeks, but she is not sure what the visits were for. Apparently she was given an appointment for a follow-up examination at the Kennedy Center, but she did not keep her appointment. The mother returned to Guyana with plaintiff in March 1985. There, she took him to a clinic for a six-week checkup, but otherwise sought no medical examinations.

At some point, she received a letter from North Central Bronx Hospital advising her that plaintiff should have a blood test. As a result, she returned with plaintiff to a Bronx clinic in September 1985. She did not recall the reason for the blood test, but recalled that the outcome was “OK.” Plaintiff notes that the clinic’s lab slip referencing the18 September 1985 blood test identified North Central Bronx as his hospital. Defendant argues that the clinic was not at North Central Bronx, though plaintiff tries to connect the two entities by noting that the clinic identified plaintiff by use of plaintiff’s North Central Bronx chart number. In any event, the mother subsequently took plaintiff back to Guyana. While in Guyana, the mother took him to a clinic to get vaccinations, and occasionally for colds, and at one point a doctor there indicated that plaintiff had a damaged hand, but no further treatment was ever given, and no further references were made.

Around 1986, plaintiff’s mother began to notice that plaintiff had difficulties with his left hand and arm, that he could not hold things and had general clumsiness when trying to hold things. She also observed at some point that he had difficulty with his left leg. She did not have this treated in Guyana; instead, she returned to the United States. Upon her request, she was scheduled for an appointment at North Central Bronx Hospital’s Well Baby Clinic on 12 August 1987. This was some 2½ years after plaintiff was discharged following his birth. In the interim, the mother had had no interaction with defendant hospital as to the medical conditions relating to the child’s birth. During that appointment, several diagnostic evaluations were made in connection with probable cerebral palsy, and a pediatric rehabilitation consultation was requested. The mother was scheduled for a 13 November 1987 appointment, and then a 29 January 1988 appointment, but she failed to appear at either appointment. She and plaintiff also failed to appear for a scheduled 7 October 1987 appointment for a rehabilitation and speech language pathology consultation. On 10 November 1987, she and plaintiff also failed to appear for a clinic appointment. She subsequently explained that during this time period, she had returned to Guyana where plaintiff was seen by a doctor who indicated that plaintiff had a damaged hand.

On July 11 and 21 July 1988, plaintiff and his mother returned to the United States where plaintiff was examined by the Rehabilitation Medicine Department at North Central Bronx Hospital and was sent for an evaluation. 23 On August 1988, he was given immunization shots and underwent a pediatric neurology evaluation, and was seen at the hospital in Brooklyn by a neurologist on 9 September 1988. During these examinations, developmental delays, speech delays, left-sided weaknesses and problems with coordination were noted. He was seen again at the North Central Bronx Hospital Clinic on 25 October 1988, at which time additional appointments were made for speech. The neurology record indicated that “care of child has been very fragmented because Mom moving back and forth to Guyana between New York and there,” and also noted that she would be returning to Guyana again in December 1988, and expected to return to New York in March 1989.

Several visits were scheduled, and several of which were missed by the plaintiff and his mother.

The records evince three general groupings of treatment: appointments and treatment at the time of the birth and relating directly to the birth; a subsequent succession of visits, with many appointments not kept by plaintiff and his mother, relating to cerebral palsy; and the latest groupings of visits that are more in the nature of the usual spate of routine pediatric visits.

On or about 20 November 1990, plaintiff commenced this action for medical malpractice by service of a summons and complaint on defendant-appellant HHC. The complaint alleged that the injuries occurred “during the pregnancy, labor, delivery and perinatal periods.”

On 18 October 1990, a notice of claim was filed. The filing of the notice of claim was not done under a grant of leave. Notably, the pleadings and notice of claim did not reference alleged malpractice occurring during courses of treatment subsequent to the birth and its immediate aftermath.

The summons and complaint were served and filed, and the notice of claim was filed, approximately 5½ years after the incidence of malpractice.

The malpractice statute of limitations is 2½ years from the act of malpractice or “last treatment where there is continuous treatment for the same condition. The term `continuous treatment’ shall not include examinations undertaken at the request of the patient for the sole purpose of ascertaining the state of the patient’s condition”. However, CPLR (Civil Practice Law and Rules) provides for a ten-year toll on the statute of limitations for infancy, so that for purposes of the statute of limitations, we need not digress to examine whether treatment was continuous to within 2½ years of the filing of the summons and complaint.

Does the continuous treatment doctrine apply so as to make timely the filing of a notice of claim under General Municipal Law during the tolling period for infancy for the statute of limitations, when the limitations period had lapsed, and leave to file a late notice of claim was never requested?

General Municipal Law (GML) requires that a notice of claim in a tort action against a public corporation must be served within 90 days after the claim arises. A court in its discretion, and upon application by the plaintiff, may extend the time to do so. GML imposes a one year and 90 day outside margin, running from the date of the event giving rise to the action. An additional restriction on the court’s grant of leave is imposed by GML, in that the extension may not exceed the time limit for the commencement of the action against the public corporation.

Logically, for such a leave request made during the tolling period for the statute of limitations, the court’s exercise of discretion is circumscribed by the clear legal mandate that if leave is granted, the late filing of the notice of claim still must be accomplished within the statute of limitations period, as extended by the tolling provisions. However, in the present case, an application was not even made to file a late notice of claim by the time the statute of limitations had run, if we deem the limitations period to have commenced at the time of the injury, i.e., birth. If the application for leave is not made prior to the running of the statute of limitations, it may not thereafter be granted. In this case, although the notice of claim was filed some five-and-a-half years after birth, the filing was not pursuant to a grant of leave. This was untimely.

However, the continuous treatment doctrine has also been applied to the GML filing deadline. Hence, if the treatment related to the alleged injury continues beyond the original event that caused the injury, the filing requirement is also tolled during that time period. As a practical matter, this means that as long as the notice of claim is filed within 90 days after the conclusion of that continuing treatment, it is timely, and no request for leave is necessary for the filing to be valid.

It must be noted that the birth injuries being alleged arose at North Central Bronx Hospital and plaintiff sued HHC and alleged continuous treatment by virtue of post-birth treatment at North Central’s Pediatric Rehabilitation Medicine Clinic for his Erb’s Palsy and at North Central’s Pediatric Clinic for routine health care. The infant plaintiff and his mother had relocated to Florida after the child’s birth. The clinic advised the mother to seek medical attention in Florida and indicated that it would forward the medical records upon request. The Court of Appeals noted that both parties in that case understood that North Central’s treatment would not continue once plaintiff relocated to Florida. Subsequently, the child was treated again at North Central after moving back to New York for various routine matters and also for a speech evaluation, though the plaintiff and his mother missed some scheduled appointments.

The Court finds that the move to Florida broke the continuity of the treatment and rejected the mother’s assertion that she had intended that the child still be treated at North Central even after they moved to Florida. Moreover, routine treatments unrelated to the injury that gave rise to the action did not extend the treatment for GML purposes. A landmark case held that the treatment must be for the injury giving rise to the claim, that the future treatments must be explicitly anticipated by both physician and patient, which must be manifested in the form of a regularly scheduled future appointment, agreed upon during the last visit, in conformance with the periodic appointments that had characterized treatment for that injury in the immediate past, and that the next scheduled appointment must be intended as part of the ongoing corrective action. Hence, there was no continuous treatment in the present case up to within 90 days of the date when the notice of claim was filed.

Even if the hospital expected the patient to return for follow-up treatments, in order for the continuous treatment doctrine to apply, the plaintiff-patient also must intend to do so in connection with the injury for which treatment was being sought. The physician and patient must reasonably intend “the patient’s uninterrupted reliance upon the physician’s observation, directions, concern, and responsibility for overseeing the patient’s progress.” The continuing treatment must be pursuant to the course of treatment established with respect to the condition that gave rise to the lawsuit. A mere continuing diagnosis by the same physician or hospital is insufficient to establish the doctrine. The fact remains that the plaintiff and his mother relocated back to Guyana and pursued medical treatment, even if it was inadequate medical treatment, in that country and the mother’s allegations that she generally expected North Central Bronx Hospital – a half a world away – to remain the treating medical entity, does not satisfy the clear requirement that both parties must actively manifest such an intent. The discharge records even indicate that the mother was referred to another medical entity for follow-up treatment, and even then she missed appointments.

Moreover, a succession of missed appointments, in any event, may also serve to sever the continuity of treatment. Hence, even if these facts allowed for a continuation of treatment beyond August 1987, the mother’s failure to continue with scheduled appointments, coupled with her continual relocation outside the country. Several of these visits were merely diagnostic rather than constituting ongoing treatment. In addition, the visits to the clinic in 1989 and 1990 seem prompted by routine pediatric care rather than being related to the birth defects, and so that would clearly constitute different, rather than continuing, treatment.

Hence, insofar as treatment did not continue within 90 days of the service of the notice of claim, and no timely request for leave to file a late notice of claim was made, the claim is barred.
Continue reading

Published on:

A suit filed by the family and legal counsel of a four-year-old boy was settled last week for €800,000. The boy’s right arm was paralyzed because of injuries incurred during his birth.
The Justice who approved the boy’s settlement said, “it was a perfectly fair and reasonable settlement.”

The boy, suing through his mother, filed against those who were found responsible for causing a severe birth injury that resulted in five spinal nerves being damaged. The consultant obstetrician based at Mount Carmel Hospital, on Braemor Rd, in Church town, Co Dublin, was found reasonably responsible.

The child is now four-years-old and still suffers as a result of injuries suffered at the hands of the doctor over four years ago.

The boy, when he was examined in February last year, was unable to dress himself and could not ride a bicycle. Counsel said even eating a bag of chips is difficult for the boy.

According to court documents perused by an expert , the plaintiff’s counsel claimed that in the course of the baby’s delivery and due to excessive traction, the baby suffered and sustained severe and personal injuries. He was delivered via vacuum extraction and was taken to the NICU where he was diagnosed with Erbs Palsy. The child was otherwise healthy and it was found that the doctor’s inept use of the vacuum mechanism was what resulted in the palsy diagnosis.

At three months, Michael was beginning to lift his arm at the shoulder, but it is claimed there was no recovery of elbow function at that stage. He is currently still continuing to suffer with severe impairment and lack of function. This case, like many others, has been studied by doctors and hospitals in Staten Island and Westchester County. They want to avoid the problems which arise from these kinds of situations.

The family is happy with the outcome and is glad they can move forward. The young child will possibly improve with physical therapy now affordable by the family through the compensation monies.
Continue reading

Published on:

In 2007, an Evesham family that previously won a landmark court ruling in favor of their son lost their specially adapted home to floodwaters. The ruined home was bought by the family with proceeds from their son’s malpractice suit. The boy was left severely disabled after complications incurred during his birth.

The boy was awarded almost £5 million after a judge agreed that he had been let down by medical professionals who failed to diagnose his mother with gestational diabetes during her pregnancy. Mothers with this condition typically deliver larger babies.

A nurse remembers the case. He says that the mother was given permission to deliver the child at home instead of in a hospital via an early C-section. Because of this, there were complications during the birth, and the child was left with cerebral palsy and Erb’s palsy which has completely confined him to a wheelchair. He is also unable to speak.

The home that the family bought with the money awarded them had specially widened doors to enable wheelchair access, multi-sensory equipment, an electric chair, and a specialized bath. The monies also provided wages for home health care workers to help look after him and see to his needs.

In July, floodwaters devastated the town of Evesham. Most of the specialized equipment was lost and £60,000 – £70,000 in damages was caused to the building itself. The family has had no option but to move out. Because of the scope of the damage, it is expected that they will not be able to move back in less than six months’ time.

The boy’s mother responded candidly when she said, “What happened to Daniel was a tragedy. This is just a blip compared with that.”

Settlement monies are expected to be used in just this way. The family bought and fitted a new home to see to the needs of their child and spent money on proper care for him. A medical professional specializing in birth Injuries said, “When medical practitioners cause damage, they should have to pay for the future care of those patients they hurt.” Hospitals and doctors in Nassau and Suffolk have studied this case.
Continue reading

Published on:

An 8-month-old Iraqi infant, who had suffered nerve damage during birth, is expected to recover some kind of movement in his right hand after a successful surgery in Houston last week. The surgery lasted two hours and according to the doctor, “It went really well.”
The operating surgeon specializes in treating children with brachial-plexus injuries like this baby. Brachial-plexus injuries, also known as Erb’s Palsy, commonly happen during birth and are referred to as shoulder dystocia.

After discovering that the child’s nerves had been pulled out of the spinal cord, a nerve bypass operation was performed. Hospitals in Queens and Staten Island deal with these problems all the time.

The infant’s father, who staged a global search to find treatment for his son, sent out e-mails to at least fifteen specialists seeking for help. This doctor was the only one who responded, and he is performing the costly surgery for free through his Texas Nerve and Paralysis Institute. He has been consulting with the family since shortly after the boy’s birth.

Both parents are practicing pediatricians and knew that surgery to repair the damage, which left his right arm and shoulder paralyzed, should be performed within his first year of life for the greatest chance of success. But politics nearly kept him from coming to the surgery center in Houston. The Iraqi Ministry of Health currently has the ability to ban physicians from traveling outside the country – an effort to halt the exodus of doctors from the war-torn nation. The effort is aimed at keeping the needed skills inside the recovering nation.

It took months for the boy’s mother to be cleared to travel to the United States. The boy and his mother arrived in Houston the week before his surgery. The father was not allowed to come with his family.

“After their plight was publicized, the family received help from the National Iraqi Assistance Center in Baghdad, a humanitarian relief program run jointly by Iraqis and the U.S. Army Civil Affairs division. A Houston immigration attorney, Nicole Morrison, offered to house the family while they are in Houston,” said a doctor interested in the outcome of this case.

Although recovery can take up to a year, the little boy was expected to be released from the hospital a few days after his surgery return to Iraq within two weeks.

Doctors who commit this travesty should be held accountable. If negligence or lack of proper care has resulted in your child needing special care or surgery shortly after birth, or if you were kept in the dark about possible actions to take, contact an expert to find out everything you need to know to make the best informed Continue reading

Published on:

A birth injury condition known as Erb’s Palsy occurs in about two out of every one thousand births, and it is typically the result of inadequate treatment by a physician or obstetrician.

A study done in Manhattan and Long Island, presented a public announcement identifying recognizable markers of the condition. In most deliveries when the baby was affected, doctor and nursing staff failed to recognize that a C-section should have been performed. Most C-sections in this case would have been based on the baby’s size. Another factor in the development of Erb’s Palsy is inadequate care and delivery situations that result in “shoulder dystocia”. The use of excessive pressure on the baby’s head, neck, or shoulder during delivery can cause several types of pressure-related nerve damages.

In malpractice or negligence cases, families have the right to seek compensation from those who are responsible. It is possibly for the plaintiffs to come to an out-of-court agreement, or settlement that is compensation received when injuries are the result of medical negligence or malpractice. Such settlements are a major boon for families having to deal with the additional costs of therapies and surgeries.

In order to prove malpractice has in fact occurred, a source has compiled a list of failures on the part of medical staffs. If a medical practitioner fails to accurately estimate the baby’s weight before delivery, diagnose and treat gestational diabetes and other complications and conditions, inform parents of the risks involved in vaginally delivery a very large baby, applies unnecessary force or inappropriate techniques during the delivery, your claims of malpractice may be proven true.

Not only must the malpractice event be discovered, but there must be a link between the inaction or ineptitude and the infant’s sustained damages. It is necessary to show tangible evidence in order to reach settlement.

Providing tangible evidence can prove that a doctor-patient relationship existed between the defendant and the plaintiff, the doctor failed to adhere to acceptable and reasonable medical protocol, and that the doctor’s negligence resulted in the damages in question.
Continue reading

Published on:

Recently, the High Court of London approved a settlement for almost €1M in an medical malpractice action filed by the parents of a nine-year-old boy who suffered shoulder and hand injuries at the time of his birth.

The boy’s 45-year-old mother has filed a separate suit concerning the trauma. She claims she underwent a ‘horrific childbirth’ which tragically left her son John physically disabled.

A reporter found that the court was told the case brought on behalf of the boy had been settled for €900,000. Senior counsel for the child said, “Liability had been admitted by the obstetrician and the Southern Health Board.” They also supplied a substantial apology.  

“No doubt the parents were advised on what to do about accepting the settlement or appealing for a higher ruling,” said a doctor. He said the parents had to give a lot of thought to the matter, but that they had, in the end, decided to accept it rather than gamble with their son’s money.

In court, senior counsel for the defendants, the doctor and hospital, told the court that his clients were very sorry for what had occurred.

The Justice presiding over the case said it was a very good settlement. She was also quoted as saying she was “very impressed by [the boy]” who suffers from Erb’s palsy, a condition which involves paralysis and loss of function to his right hand. Fortunately, the boy is not intellectually disabled; he is a “clever, handsome, articulate little man who deserved the settlement.”

According to records, this is the highest award ever handed out in the case of an Erb’s palsy medical negligence damages claim.  

The mother’s case claims the obstetrician failed in his duties because he did not initiate a caesarean section, which would have been much quicker and safer for her son. He also failed to appropriately use a forceps mechanical extraction device in the delivery of her son. 

The doctor and hospital have admitted liability in this case which is suing for damages only. Hospitals in Nassau and Suffolk try to avoid these accidents.
Continue reading

Published on:

Over half a million pounds in compensation was just awarded to a North London teenager. Complications at her delivery years ago left her partially disabled as she enters adulthood.
The sixteen-year-old from Barnet suffered serious complications during her birth at London’s Barnet and Chase Farm Hospital, and she now suffers with Erb’s Palsy.

Erb’s Palys is a condition that causes paralysis of the arm. More specifically, the upper group of the arm’s primary nerves are severed during severe trauma. Depending on the nature of the trauma, the paralysis can either resolve on its own over a period of months, necessitate rehabilitative therapy, or require surgery. It was caused when her shoulder became stuck during delivery, which caused the extensive damage to the nerves in her shoulder. A study reveals that complications such as this happen more often than the public realizes.

It is often a very preventable situation that could have been avoided with more expert use of forceps and vacuums and quicker and more adaptive delivery methods.

Despite numerous operations to alleviate her condition, the teenager still finds it extremely difficult to carry out even the most basic of normal everyday tasks.

The young woman was awarded £575,000 in birth injury compensation by London’s High Court; the Barnet and Chase Farm Hospitals NHS Trust fully admitted liability in the incident. The payment is believed to be amongst the highest ever awarded to an Erb’s Palsy sufferer.

The expert in Manhattan and another in Long Island following the case says that the teenager’s legal team explained to the High Court that staff at the hospital failed to carry out the recommended and standard procedures. This negligence is why the emergency, which is referred to as shoulder dystocia, developed at all during her delivery.

The NHS Hospitals Trust fully admitted that there were shortcomings in the level of care provided to the young woman. They apologize to the teen and her family for their oversight and inadequate care.
Continue reading

Published on:

Having a baby can be one of a family’s most joyous occasions, and with more than 4 million babies born each year there are many happy people with healthy new additions to their families. However, the New York Birth Injury Attorney claims, there are also other babies that are born with a variety of health problems, including those deemed as being debilitating like Erbs Palsy. While any child that is born with medical problems is both sad and tragic, many parents have been utilizing a method known as cord blood storage as a means of providing for their children should a condition or illness manifest itself as they grow and develop.
An questioner was told that cord blood contains stem cells and other genetic information about the baby. The method of delivery of the baby is irrelevant as the cord blood can be harvested whether the baby is born vaginally or by C-section. The cord blood is collected before the umbilical cord is cut and is then sent to either a private or public storage facility to which the parents will pay a monthly fee to store their child’s cord blood for future use, if needed. The one distinction between the public and private storage is that the parents’ monthly fee assures that their child’s blood will be available to them if needed, and a public storage is more like a cord blood bank where the cord blood is made available to anyone who needs it. Either storage method would only be good until the child reaches about 18-years of age since it is at that point that there would be insufficient stem cells within the cord blood to treat the person.
While storing cord blood may be considered by many to be a controversial approach to a potential medical problem that may never materialize, there are many who store the cord blood in case their child develops a blood type disease such as leukemia. To a parent who has a child who has been diagnosed with such a disease, cord blood storage could be considered a godsend.
As with any new technology, there are positive and negative arguments, a NY Birth Injury Lawyer learned. The technology is still considered as new, so there is also much about it that is unknown. Hospitals in New York City and Queens are studying results. As with any new method or tool, those who seek to gain use of the new system should weigh their options carefully and arrive at the decision that is best for you and your family.
Continue reading

Contact Information