Articles Posted in Spinal Injury

Published on:

On October 10, 1989, a mother brought her son in to the Rusk Institute for his regular evaluation for spina bifida. While they were at the institute, the medical staff noticed that the child had pain in his arm. A medical examination revealed that the child was suffering from a spiral fracture of his upper right arm. The mother stated that the child had not shown any signs of pain or injury prior to appearing at the institute for his check up. She stated that she thought that the child’s one and one-half year old brother must have caused the injury. The medical staff contend that it is beyond unlikely that such a small child would have the strength or ability to cause a spiral fracture of an upper arm. The medical experts also contend that the injury could not have been caused by the child’s spina bifida. The medical staff stated that the child would have been in extreme pain at the time of the accident and for several days following the injury. The medical staff stated that at the time that the mother brought the child to the institute, the injury was obvious and included swelling, bruising, lack of movement, and pain whenever anyone touched the arm. The medical staff contend that the injury was obvious to them and that it should have been obvious to the parents. The contention is that the parents were responsible for neglecting the child to the point of child abuse in that they did not take the child to the hospital for treatment before his appointment on October 10th.

The history of the family is that the woman was notified while she was pregnant that her child would likely be born with birth defects. She chose not to abort the infant. The infant was a little over five months old at the time of the injury. The child was born in Puerto Rico, but the family moved to New York in 1989 so that the child could have care at the spina bifida clinic at the Rusk Institute. On the regular appointment for the child on October 10, 1989, the doctor who was examining him noticed that the right arm was swollen and yellowish-green in color. He arranged for the infant to be taken to the emergency room immediately. The doctor testified at trial that a side effect of spina bifida is a propensity for fractures and that when they occur, there is minimal trauma noted. However, this is usually only below the area where the spina bifida is located on the child. The arm is above this location and the doctor stated that he had never seen a fracture associated with spina bifida in the upper extremities. The doctor stated that he could be relatively certain that the fracture was not associated with the spina bifida and that it would have required a larger amount of force to cause the fracture than what another small child could exert.

The x-rays of the child showed corner fractures in both of the baby’s knees in addition to the spiral fracture of the infant’s arm. The knee fractures were associated with the spina bifida. The arm was the result of a twisting motion that is more commonly seen in child abuse cases. The hospital social worker also observed a bruise on the infant’s cheek that the mother stated had been caused by the little brother as well. The mother told the social worker that she had noticed the swelling on the baby’s arm the day before she took him for his appointment. The social worker filed a report of child abuse because of the nature of the injury and the fact that the mother stated that she had noticed the injury the day before and had not taken the child for treatment.

The mother stated that on October 9, she left both of the children alone for a short time while she took a shower. She stated that prior to showering, she had placed the infant on his side in his crib. The two year old was playing on the floor near the crib. While she was in the shower, she heard the baby crying. She go out of the shower and observed the older brother inside the crib with the baby. She stated that the baby was no longer on his side, but was on his back and there was a bruise on his face where the older brother had struck him. She stated that the older brother is having a difficult time dealing with all of the attention that his little brother is getting. He is jealous of the attention and has to be watched closely so that he does not snatch toys from him or hit the baby. She said that he has been acting out by hitting the baby and demanding to be held when the baby is being held. She stated that he constantly wants to hold the baby and carry him around the way that he sees his parents doing. The mother brought the spina bifida doctor into court to testify for her. He stated that the circumstances as presented by the mother could very likely be the cause for the child’s injury. He stated that if the two year old brother had grabbed the baby by the arm and twisted it around to make the baby lie on his back, he could likely have caused the twist fracture to the arm.

The Nassau and Suffolk courts reviewed the circumstances of this case and the fact that the weakened state of the bones in a child with spina bifida can cause them to exhibit fractures much more easily than a normal infant. The court decided that the doctor who specialized in spina bifida was more likely to be able to deduce the actuality of the injury than any other doctor. The fact that that doctor believes that the injury could have occurred in that manner is believable and the charge of child abuse as it relates to the cause of the fracture is dismissed. However, the matter of why the mother did not seek immediate medical care for the broken arm is still in dispute. The doctor praised the care that the mother has given the infant in that he states that infants with spina bifida have weakened bone structure because of the paralysis. He stated that most infants with spina bifida exhibit muscle ulcers and sores because of their lack of movement. He stated that the fact that this infant does not have these sores is evidence of the excellent care that this mother is providing this child. He further stated that because of the weakened bone structure, that the injury could have been cause simply by picking him up, or his brother pulling a toy out of the baby’s hands.

The court noted that Family Court had made note of the admirable care that the parents have provided for the baby, while at the same time finding that they are neglectful of the child. The Supreme Court vacated the charges of abuse and neglect and returned the children to their parents.
Continue reading

Published on:

On September 10, 1993, a mother brought her 56 day old baby girl to the emergency room at Saint Luke’s Hospital in New York for treatment. The hospital staff were horrified at what they discovered. The small baby had several broken bones. She had a spinal fracture of her of her right arm that was evidence of a severe twisting action with enough force to break both bones. She had eight broken ribs. Some of the ribs showed evidence that they had begun to heal. The staff determined that those breaks were about two weeks old. Some of the broken ribs were fresh, within days before being admitted to the hospital. Both of the infant’s large leg bones, the femurs were broken. Both of the small leg bones, the tibias were broken. Both of the baby’s ankles were broken. The baby had a fractured wrist, and her left arm was fractured at the ulna. The hospital staff notified social services and the police department.

The police officers and social service workers arrived at the hospital. The social services workers took custody of the infant and eventually placed her in kinship foster care. The police officers arrested both of the parents for child abuse and neglect. When questioned about what happened, the father advised the officers that the day before the mother took the baby to the hospital, he had been giving her a bath. She had begun to slip under the water and he grabbed her by the arm to prevent her from drowning. The mother stated that the day before she took the baby to the hospital, the father had approached her and told her that he was afraid that he had injured her while giving her a bath. Neither of the parents took the baby to the hospital to be checked out at that time. The mother waited until the following day to take the baby into the hospital to be checked out.

The parents contend that the child was not injured to the extent that the hospital records state. They claimed that they had two well-baby checkups performed at their doctor’s office which did not detect any broken bones or any other injuries. They claim that the hospital personnel are mistaken. They further made a motion to the court to have the criminal charges against them transferred over to family court for handling. Family court has the ability to have any case transferred to it that it feels would best be served by being handled in a civil fashion rather than a criminal one. The standards that are evaluated to determine if the case would best be served by transfer to family court are straightforward. The entire purpose of the family court is to protect and provide for the children. The court recognizes that some cases are not best served by being transferred to family court.

Some cases are too heinous to be handled in family court in either Queens or Staten Island. The court contends that this case is one of them. Serious cases that involve the level of abuse that has been observed in this case, as well as homicide and numerous other cases are more appropriately handled at the criminal level. Criminal court is designed to punish offenders of criminal statute. Civil court is designed to offer alternative rehabilitation to the family unit by using family court processes which are civil in construction. The court determined that it is important to send a message to all persons who may consider striking out against an infant that if they use force against a child, they will be sent to prison. In this case, the child was in the custody of both parents the entire 56 days of her life and the ridiculous excuses that they presented for the cause of the child’s injury require criminal court review. The request to have the case transferred to family court was denied.
Continue reading

Published on:

In February of 2006, an elderly woman was a resident of the Jewish Home and Infirmary of Rochester, New York, Inc. It is owned and operated by the Jewish Health Care System of Rochester, Inc. One day, the nursing staff failed to follow procedure as it concerned this woman. She required catheterization to urinate. However, on that date, no one arrived to insert the catheter. Feeling uncomfortable, the woman attempted to get out of her bed and go to the bathroom on her to catheterize herself. However, when she stood up, her bladder vacated itself on the floor. She slipped in the puddle and fell. She was injured and complained of pain from the fall. The staff performed a few diagnostic evaluations, but continued to keep her moving. The medical staff at the home encouraged the nurses to keep her attempting to walk and going to physical therapy.

The elderly woman continued to complain of pain. She was examined by the staff doctor on at least one occasion, however, he did not perform a neurological test. In fact, her fall was never noted in the doctor’s documentation. She continued to get worse and fell again on March 12, 2006 while the staff was trying to get her to walk again. On March 15th she was in such severe pain that the staff ordered a CT scan of her back. It was discovered that she had fractured the T7 vertebrae and the test also showed a compression deformity of T11. The doctor at the facility failed to have her transferred to the hospital for treatment and failed to follow any protocols for protection of the spinal cord to guard against spinal cord damage.

On March 18, 2006, the woman’s son in law came to visit her. He is a board certified physician in the state of New York. He performed a neurological evaluation and demanded that she be transferred to a hospital emergency room immediately. At the hospital, she was diagnosed with compression fractures of her thoracic spine area. She was also diagnosed with a spinal cord injury that caused her to be paralyzed from the waist down. She lost bladder and bowel control due to the injury and would spend the rest of her natural life in a wheel chair. Her family who live in Nassau and Suffolk filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against the doctor and the facility for failing to provide appropriate care.

The suit details the fact that the nurses had failed to catheterize the woman according to the known details of her medical condition and care. This deviation from what is a standard medical practice is only the first instant of medical malpractice in this suit. After the staff failed to assist the woman in catheterization, she was forced to attempt to go the bathroom on her own. When she fell, she was not provided with appropriate care to treat her fractured spine or to protect her spinal cord. In fact, just the opposite was true since the staff continued to encourage her to move her back around by walking and attending physical therapy. The staff continued to ignore the woman’s complaints of severe pain. It was their continued disregard for the welfare of this patient that caused her to suffer from an injury to her spinal cord. There were many deviations from standard care in this situation. The qualifications for initiating a medical malpractice suit is that the victim must be able to show a deviation from commonly acceptable medical practices and care. There is no doubt that this situation met that standard. The court agreed and determined that there was a triable case.
Continue reading

Published on:

More than fifty years ago, the drug, diethylstilbestrol (DES), was invented and had been dispensed to women in the United States from 1941 to 1971. In 1947, the Federal Drug Administration approved the drug for treatment of complications relating to pregnancy. In 1971, its use was banned due to the link between its use and the later development of cancer in female offspring (defective product).

In the present case, it is alleged that a woman (mother of Plaintiff One and grandmother of Plaintiff Two) ingested DES “within the years 1959 and 1960”. She gave birth to Plaintiff One on 29 January 1960. Plaintiff-One gave birth to Plaintiff Two on 9 August 1981. It is alleged that Plaintiff One sustained a (birth injury) malformed uterus, cervical and uterine dysfunction and squamous metaplasia as a consequence of her mother’s ingestion of DES. As a result of those injuries, it is alleged that Plaintiff-Two was born prematurely and suffered cerebral palsy (brain injury), gran mal seizures and various related congenital defects (spinal injury). In addition, it is alleged that Plaintiff One suffered four spontaneous abortions before and after the birth of Plaintiff Two.

The exact dates of ingestion of DES by the mother of Plaintiff One, the names of the dispensing pharmacy and pharmacist, the prescription, the instructions for ingestion and the manufacturer of the drug ingested are all ‘unknown’ to Plaintiffs.

Plaintiff’s theory of liability as set forth in their complaint is: “If Plaintiffs are unable to identify the specific manufacturer and/or manufacturers of the specific DES ingested by the mother causing injuries as aforesaid to Plaintiffs herein, then Plaintiffs will rely on the theory of concerted action in that the Defendants, their agents, servants and/or employees, in pursuance of a common plan or design committed tortious acts as aforesaid in consciously paralleling each other, in failing to test and/or warn due to some implied understanding or defendants, their agents, servants, and/or employees, acting independently of each other, failed to properly test said DES, having the effect of substantially aiding or encouraging the failure to adequately test and warn by the others.

Alternatively, Plaintiffs rely on the theories of alternative liability, and/or enterprise liability, and/or market share liability.”

The issues are:

1. Does a granddaughter, born more than 20 years after the ingestion of drugs by her grandmother, have a cause of action against the drug manufacturer for birth defects claimed to have resulted from her mother’s injuries which are linked to the drug ingestion?

2. Does New York recognize a joint theory of liability whereby all or any drug manufacturer of a harmful drug may be held responsible for injuries sustained from the drug regardless of whether they are identified as the manufacturer of the drug in the individual case?

3. Is the revival statute, which permits the late filing of the instant lawsuit, unconstitutional?

4. Does such revival statute permit a derivative claim for loss of consortium?

5. Are emotional claims resulting from the birth of a handicapped child cognizable in New York?

On the first issue, unquestionably, a cause of action exists for a child whose injuries occurred in utero; whereas, a cause of action does not exist for a child conceived after tort injury to the parent. Neither case considers the posture of Plaintiff One. Her claim is for injuries occurring in utero. Plaintiff Two’s cause of action is the claim of a child not in existence for injuries which resulted from injuries to a mother in utero, where the conduct complained of was directed to the grandmother.

Necessarily it is not for this court to determine the likelihood of Plaintiff’s success should this action proceed. Rather, under a summary judgment review, it will be presumed that the facts set forth in the complaint are true. Plaintiff Two was born with severe congenital defects resulting from a premature birth. Her right to bring suit must now be determined by this Court as a matter of law. Her attorney asks this Court to cast liability backward two generations to a drug manufacturer. Sympathies lie with the infant Plaintiff. Sympathies however cannot form the legal foundation for the pioneering decision sought by Plaintiffs. The practical considerations articulated are perhaps nowhere as graphically illustrated as in this case. The Plaintiff’s bill of particulars furnishes this insight. The Plaintiffs cannot provide the name of the pharmacy, the prescription, a physical description of the drug ingested by the grandmother, the name of the pharmacist, or the instructions for ingestion. Proceeding from such background, it must be assumed that Defendants will be equally unable to produce any definitive information for trial review. The passage of time and generations obscure such evidence to the extent that a third generation lawsuit must necessarily be posited solely upon sympathy and conjecture. Once all legal requirements of proof and rational limitations on the area of actionable causation are removed, the fact finding of the trial court will be severely impaired. There is no legal precedent for such liability. The precedent is to the contrary. That precedent is founded upon well-reasoned considerations to which this Court subscribes.

Hence, the claims of the Plaintiff Two are dismissed as well as those claims of Plaintiff One and the husband which are posited upon her claims.

On the second issue, the general rule casts the burden of proof upon the Plaintiff to identify both the specific substance and the manufacturer thereof in order to state a cause of action. The policy considerations for such rule have already been reviewed. Where a cause of action does exist, however, and the injury goes undetected, documented identification is impossible and where it is clear that the harmful product is manufactured in substantially the same form by a number of manufacturers, several jurisdictions have adopted theories to relieve the Plaintiff of its burden, and shift the identification problems to the manufacturers.

Plaintiffs who live in
Brooklyn and Manhattan, in the present case, tender a ‘shotgun’ offense, relying in the alternative upon four different theories of unidentified manufacturer liability:

1) Concerted action
2) Alternative liability
3) Enterprise liability
4) Market share liability

Several of these theories may be rejected outright. Plaintiffs have targeted six of the major drug companies, while it is conceded that upwards of one hundred manufactured DES and twelve were involved in a select committee to make recommendations to the Federal Drug Administration.

Both the alternative liability and the market share liability theories are unavailable where Plaintiff elects to join only a limited number of the potentially liable Defendants.

The enterprise liability concept is described as a “hybrid derived from concepts of alternative and concurrent liability and the law of products liability to form a type of absolute liability.” It has been applied to DES cases, but not in New York.

The concerted action theory may be available to a plaintiff in spite of its targeting only a limited number of manufacturers as defendants.

Where it can be established that defendants acting jointly adopt a common plan or design to commit a tortious act or ratify such a common plan, those injured thereby may hold any one of the defendants liable. Consequently it is the joint tortious activity of the manufacturers which gives rise to the cause of action.

The compliance by the defendants here with the original Federal Drug Administration directive that they pool their information in 1941 unfortunately now forms the basis for the conclusion that the defendants acted jointly to commit a tort. The model then adopted set the pattern for later manufacturers. But factual matters do not come into play on this a motion for summary judgment. It is a legal issue which apparently has been ruled upon by the First Department. Accordingly, the summary judgment motion on this basis must fail.

Defendant RXDC asserts as a further defense to the concerted action theory, that it can establish exculpation. Clearly, where concerted action is an available remedy, a defendant who can establish that he was not the purveyor of the drug to a particular plaintiff and did not act tortiously in concert with those which did, stands on different footing from his co-defendants. Exculpation, however, necessarily must rest upon proof of factual allegations.

The court concludes that evidence may be adduced by defendants as to exculpation in defense of the concerted action theory, but a summary judgment does not lie in their favor prior to trial.

On the third issue, exceptional circumstances must be demonstrated to warrant legislative intervention in reviving a cause of action which is time barred. Such circumstances have been documented in the legislative history of this enactment. It is obvious that the DES injuries are undetectable until the second generation and an exposure statute affords no remedy for the injuries sustained. Exceptional circumstances have been demonstrated and any claims based upon the unconstitutionality of the revival statute are denied.

On the fourth issue, the statute herein revives “every action for personal injury, injury to property caused by the latent effects of exposure to diethylstilbestrol upon or within the body.” Where the personal injury action is revived, the derivative loss of consortium claim is also revived.

While it is true that Plaintiff One brought her injuries to the marriage relationship, they were undiscoverable until child bearing. Accordingly the general tort rule is inapplicable, for the very purpose of the revival statute is to permit this type of litigation for an undiscoverable tort.

Lastly, on the fifth issue, the complaint claims damages for the husband of Plaintiff Two alleging “that he will never have a healthy child” and damages for Plaintiff Two alleging she “suffered emotional injury and distress due to her physical and emotional injuries as well as the physical and emotional injuries sustained by her daughter the infant Plaintiff.

The court rules that the claims of the parents in so far as they claim damages for emotional injuries resulting from the birth of their child are not cognizable under the laws of New York.

Birth injuries are devastating and heart-breaking. No one can easily bear the pain these injuries can create. It is unimaginable. To see a child who cannot live his life to its fullest extent is just distressing. For this reason, drug manufacturers and physicians must always do their best in the performance of their jobs. People rely on these manufacturers with their life. The medical field is a life or death situation where a simple mistake could lead to tragic consequences.

Medical malpractice exists when the treatment provided does not conform to the standard required. It happens alongside with negligence as the proximate cause. If injuries were sustained by reason of a medical malpractice, a lawsuit is proper. Do not waste your time and contact a legal expert immediately.
Continue reading

Published on:

Some anticonvulsant medications, like Depakote, are being linked to birth defects according to a doctor is citing recent studies.

Victims of these anticonvulsant birth defects will possibly need financial assistance to provide the life-long medical care necessary for children born with conditions like spina bifida, heart malformations, or physical cleft injuries.

Depakote is one of the most widely used anticonvulsant drugs on the market, prescribed to individuals suffering from epilepsy, migraine headaches and bipolar disorder. Unfortunately, several official reports from such prestigious health agencies as the New England Journal of Medicine and the Food and Drug Administration are beginning to report a connection between Depakote use and significant development of birth defects in infants exposed to the drug within the uterus.

Among the birth defects possibly associated with the use of this anticonvulsant are such severe and potentially fatal issues as spina bifida, craniofacial defects (malformed face and skill), neural tube birth defects (defects of the brain and spinal cord) and cardiovascular malformations (defects of the heart and blood vessels).. The complications associated in these studies in New York City and Long Island have required lifelong medical attention and multiple reconstructive surgeries. Some of those birth defects have no cure, and extensive medical treatment is often required in order to simply alleviate the individual symptoms associated with the condition.

Physically and emotionally, a birth defect diagnosis can put a huge burden on a victim and his family; the financial aspect of treating a birth defect can severely drain a family as well.
Since the FDA has labeled Depakote a category D medication, a classification reserved for drugs with positive human evidence that shows the potential to cause serious harm to a fetus when taken during pregnancy, experts have taken up the cases of several affected families. Women who took Depakote during pregnancy and gave birth to a child with one or more birth defects should seek legal guidance from a qualified lawyer to determine the best course of action.
Continue reading

Published on:

U.S. troops in Iraq discovered an Iraqi infant with severe birth defect when they conducted a raid on a home she was in last month. That baby arrived in Atlanta last month for medical treatment.
The baby was responsive and in good condition, a spokesman for Children’s Healthcare of Atlanta reported. He said it will probably be one more week before she will undergo surgery.
The three-month-old child left Baghdad in a military transport plane accompanied by her grandmother and father.
A translator at the airport in Atlanta translated the grandmother’s brief comments on their arrival at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport. “She said they’re happy to be here.”
A New York Birth Injury Lawyer said that U.S. troops discovered the baby three weeks ago during the raid of a house in Abu Ghraib, a poverty-stricken district west of Baghdad. On inspection of the child, the soldiers noticed paralysis in the baby’s legs and what appeared to be a tumor on her back. They later learned the 3-month-old child had spina bifida, a birth defect in which the backbone and spinal cord do not close before birth. The “tumor” on the baby’s back was actually a fluid-filled sac containing part of the spinal cord and membranes that are supposed to cover the spinal cord. “Accounts of this type tug at heartstrings worldwide,” the lawyer said.
Photos were emailed to U.S. doctors as well as some medical information. A full evaluation, however, was necessary before attempting a surgery for one so small. A pediatric neurosurgeon agreed to take the case, saying, “I think the chances of her survival are good.”
Without additional medical care, the child is sure to die.
The child’s health care is to be provided for free, the neurosurgeon said. The surgery and accompanying care would cost about $200,000 if it were billed.
The soldiers are also to be praised for their role in getting the baby to the United States. A Georgia Senator also helped arrange the trip.
The child is likely to need one or two more months in the United States to complete the medical repairs and recovery before she will be able to return to Iraq. Child spring International, a faith-based children’s medical charity, has arranged for a family to host the grandmother and father while they are her in America. Hospitals in Staten Island or Westchester County would be happy to take the child.
Continue reading

Published on:

Just as chiropractic care can be a benefit to dealing with the effects of Vertebral Subluxation Complex, it can also help with more common ailments and health issues that children face, reports a New York Birth Injury Lawyer. These common health problems that can be helped with chiropractic care include the need for constant antibiotic use, ear tubes, hyperactivity, common sniffles and head cold symptoms, headaches, colic, and more. For parents wanting to help their children overcome these health issues, a visit to a licensed and experienced chiropractor may do more for them than they ever dreamed possible. Surgery, prescription drugs, and alternative and often invasive medical procedures are often what doctors recommend, but according to the findings of a NY Birth Injury Attorney these are not the only way to treat and even help prevent many common ailments in children. In a recent eighteen-year long study of upper respiratory infections in a group of 100 families, researchers found that ear infection often occurred as a result of restricted spinal motion in the area of the upper neck. If this motion was restored, the respiratory symptoms often went away with it. The benefits of chiropractic care on the health of children are tremendous and should be considered, especially where Vertebral Subluxation Complex is involved. Perhaps the best part about chiropractic care In Manhattan and Long Island, both of which have many practitioners, is its non-invasive and preventative nature. As reported by a New York Lawyer, this type of total body care is a good way to help treat this and other debilitating issues that are caused by birth trauma.
Continue reading

Published on:

Vertebral Subluxation Complex, a debilitating spinal misalignment and nervous system issue brought on by birth trauma, happens when the nerve signals from the brain to the rest of the body are interrupted. As relayed by a NY Birth Injury Lawyer, the spinal cord’s involvement with the nerve signal process is integral to how the human body functions; when this process is not functioning properly, serious developmental and structural issues can crop up. There are five main components to Vertebral Subluxation Complex. First, it settles in the joints of one or more of the 24 spinal bones, which then heal incorrectly. This can result in the bones becoming either too loose, too tight, or misaligned altogether. Second, the affected joints can pinch and irritate the spinal nerves and thus interfere with the transfer of information from the brain to the nerves in the rest of the body. Third, muscles can spasm or weaken, which leads to the fourth issue: muscle inflammation and even the potential development of scar tissue. Fifth and finally, the spine itself can begin to slowly degenerate and cause limitations in overall range of motion, which leads to severe pain and the inability of the body as a whole to develop properly. Doctors and nurses in Nassau and Suffolk Counties are always on alert when it comes to this. Vertebral Subluxation Complex is a serious issue that needs dealt with quickly. A New York Birth Injury Attorney has reported that immediate treatment and rehabilitation of the affected body parts and nervous system can your child move past this horrible health problem so they can lead a happy and healthy life.
Continue reading

Published on:

Birth trauma can happen to anyone, and can be the result of either natural or unnatural causes, reports a NY Birth Injury Attorney. Since the delicate and still-developing spinal cord and nervous system of an infant are so fragile, it does not take much in the way of trauma or rough handling to cause spinal misalignment or even its more debilitating counterpart, “Vertebral Subluxation Complex,” or VSC. A jarring accident, as well as the use of forceful birth alternatives such as vacuum extraction and even Cesarean Sections, can cause this trauma – a fact that is often brought to light by New York Birth Injury Lawyers. Dr. Jeanne Ohm – a Pediatric Chiropractor and a member of the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association – noted that even something such as simple as routine labor and delivery procedures can cause spinal injury liked misalignment and damage. This includes labor-inducing procedures, the use of pain medication, and restrictions on labor positions due to the mother’s health requirements. In addition to causing nerve damage, Vertebral Subluxation Complex can also cause organ malfunction, muscle damage, and tissue damage – all of which can be devastating medical issues to an infant’s development. These compounded issues can create the need for continued care and rehabilitation for the child, even in the least damaging of situations. Hospitals in Queens and The Bronx are on the look out for any of these possibilities.
Continue reading

Published on:

Researchers at the University of Michigan Medical School and Johns Hopkins University have successfully developed a treatment that helps animals with traumatic spinal cord injuries. The treatment actually allows new nerve fibers to grow in replacement of destroyed ones.
Brachial plexus avulsion is an injury that occurs when an arm is pulled violently away from the body. In people, the injury occurs most often in motorcycle accidents or during childbirth.
The implications of this study for people who may face amputation of an appendage or those who suffer a brachial plexus injury are far-reaching and exciting.
New York Birth Injury Law Offices are incredibly interested in this new study and the implications for their clients. Should this procedure be found effective, they can seek help to pay for the treatment from those who were responsible in causing it.
Researchers mimicked the brachial plexus avulsion injury in their study because it involves nerves at the boundary between the spinal cord and the peripheral nervous system, the part of the nervous system that connects to the rest of the body.
During the study, rats with nerve injuries that received a nerve-transplant combined with a dose of an enzyme called sialidase, grew more than twice as many new nerve fibers in the spinal cord when compared to untreated rats.
In addition to that, researchers found that the new fibers were made by nerve cells residing in the spinal cord. In short, this treatment seems to be stimulating the growth of cells that already exist in the body.
While surgeons can often reattach the yanked nerves to the spinal cord, the surgery is not as effective as physicians and patients would like because nerves in the brain and spinal cord, unlike those in the rest of the body, fail to grow new nerve fibers. If a severed finger is reattached, nerve fibers there typically grow back and the finger becomes usable again.
In contrast, the injured brain and spinal cord are rocky terrain for nerve fiber growth because nerves in those areas are surrounded by signals from other cells in the injured area that stop them from growing. Molecules in the spinal cord, called axon regeneration inhibitors, ARIs, are known to stop nerve fibers from growing. Spinal Injury in hospitals in Brooklyn and The Bronx happen all the time during child birth.
The researchers tested three enzymes, including sialidase, which are known to destroy ARIs. Rats that received a nerve transplant followed by treatment with sialidase showed the greatest improvement in nerve re-growth.
Continue reading

Contact Information