Over the past few years, progress has clearly been made with regard to the professional liability crisis.
The plaintiff alleged that given the fetal size and weight, earlier caesarean delivery was warranted and that improper management of shoulder dystocia and compound presentation of the posterior arm resulted in right Erb’s palsy, scapular winging, and decreased movement and function of the right extremity.
The plaintiff asserted that during the diagnostic laparoscopy, Dr A and Dr B should have detected the ectopic pregnancy in the right fallopian tube. Her attorneys claimed that based upon the plaintiff’s abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding, and β- hCG levels, and absent evidence of intrauterine pregnancy on ultrasound, the defendants should have presumed ectopic pregnancy and adequately evaluated the fallopian tube before discharging the patient, thus avoiding rupture.
Two cases illustrate how jury verdicts and awards to plaintiffs may differ drastically in medical malpractice trials.
The plaintiff’s lawyers alleged that the defendants caused the perforation during the D & C, failed to recognize it intraoperatively, and failed to repair it at the time.
When a jury sees a diagnosis of HIE, it is very difficult to show them that no hypoxia occurred in labor, even in the face of normal cord blood gases.
Despite counseling, a patient is reluctant to follow her MFM specialist's advice.
Following a normal delivery, a woman develops an infection that leads to severe consequences. Plus: Another case alleging scarring from forceps.
The verdicts and settlements involved in this case and 8 others.
In malpractice cases allegations of a failure to follow the chain-of-command policy often are made retrospectively, knowing the bad outcome and claiming that nurses had a responsibility to obtain additional medical care that would have prevented the patient’s injury.