Birth Injury

Published on: October 9, 2012

At the beginning, the court had lack of authority to grant the leave

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a claim for medical malpractice against the Manhattan health and hospitals corporation brought by a mother, individually and on behalf of her son. The infant was born at one hospital and allege that the infant sustained meconium aspiration syndrome and hypertonia as a result of the hospital’s mismanagement of the labor and delivery. Though the infant was transferred to another hospital and stayed for almost two weeks, he was then transferred back with the previous hospital where he received continuous treatment. It is also alleged that the infant suffers from brain injury and severe developmental delays.

At the beginning, the court had lack of authority to grant the leave to file a late notice of claim as to the mother’s individual claims because her application is made more than one year and ninety days from the accrual of the incident. As to the infant’s claims, based on the dates of the alleged malpractice, a notice of claim should have been served on the hospital corporations but the infant is the beneficiary of an infancy toll.

Further, entries in the medical records reveal that the infant was developing normally at the time of discharge and there is no indication of a long term injury. In the supporting affidavit, the mother admits to being aware of the conclusion by noting that at the age of three months her son had met all developmental milestones. A neurology visit note also supports the said conclusion. The mother also stated that about 17 months after her delivery, her son had once again met all milestones. The mother stated that she did not learn of her son’s alleged delays until some point and that it was not until more findings led her to believe that her son’s injury was in fact related to his birthing process. It is evident that the mother could not have been aware of any damages attributable to the delivery within 90 days of the date of accrual, or a reasonable time thereafter, as there was no indication that the infant experiences any alleged delays. Consequently, the subject medical records alone do not support that the mother, by its acts or omissions, inflicted injuries to the infant and that the mother should have been aware of same within the applicable 90 days, or a reasonable time thereafter.

Published on: October 4, 2012

In support of his motion for late service of a notice of claim,

by Stephen Bilkis

This is a medical malpractice case filed against the defendant hospital because of the negligence committed by its employees during plaintiff’s birth in September 1993. According to the hospital records, the medical employees in attendance gave his mother Pitocin, a drug used to facilitate the birth. The delivery involved two attempts at vacuum extraction and, ultimately, the use of forceps. Records show that the mother’s pelvis was adequate to accommodate the baby’s head and the birth was without complication. The infant weighed 8 pounds, 3½ ounces. His Apgar score was within satisfactory range: eight at one minute after birth and nine at five minutes after birth. The records also reveal that there were marks on his forehead from the forceps and his clavicle was broken. Because of the foregoing, plaintiff is presently suffering from epilepsy and developmental disabilities.

The record reveals that in 1995 plaintiff had an electroencephalogram (EEG), a test to trace his brain waves. The results were normal, but EEGs in 1998 and 1999 showed signs of abnormality. On September 5, 2003, 10 years after plaintiff’s birth, his counsel sent defendant hospitals in Nassau and Suffolk a notice of claim alleging, in essence, that plaintiff suffered brain injury resulting from the hospital’s malpractice during his delivery.

In support of his motion for late service of a notice of claim, plaintiff argued that section 50-e (5) contemplates “actual knowledge of the essential facts constituting the claim,” not knowledge of a specific legal theory, and because defendant hospital is in possession of the medical records, they necessarily have actual knowledge of the facts constituting the claim. Plaintiff further argued that the delay in the service of claim was a product of his infancy.

Published on: September 17, 2012

On April 6, 2007, the New York State Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded

by Stephen Bilkis

On April 6, 2007, the New York State Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded to a call just before ten at night to an apartment on Colonial Road in Brooklyn. The call was related to a twenty-five year old woman bleeding vaginally. Upon their arrival, the EMS team noticed that there was blood in the shower area and that the young woman who was seated on the commode was bleeding from her vagina. She was cold and clammy and was transported immediately. The EMS team asked her if she was pregnant or if she could be pregnant. She stated that she was not. However, upon admittance into the hospital at Lutheran Medical Center, the doctors discovered that it was clear that she had recently given birth to a child. The woman refused to admit that she had delivered a baby.

The Long Island hospital personnel contacted the police department to locate the baby. The police officers returned to the apartment and questioned the sister of the woman who was in the hospital. They told her that the hospital had said that there was a baby and that they needed to check on the welfare of the child. They repeatedly asked the sister where the baby was. She denied that there was a baby, but finally told them that there were several garbage bags outside in the cold night air behind the apartment. When the officers examined the contents of the garbage bags, they discovered the body of a newborn infant girl in the trash. She was still alive, but showing no signs of life other than being pink in color. She was intubated and transferred to the hospital for emergency medical care. The infant died shortly after arrival. Her cause of death was from exposure to the cold and hypoxia brought on by being tied up in a garbage bag.

The young woman was charged with homicide in causing the death of her newborn infant. The defense attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence that was collected by the police officers because they contend that it should be excluded from the case under the exclusionary rule. Their contention was based on the idea that the police officers had responded to the location without a warrant and had located the infant based on confidential medical information that was illegally obtained.

Published on: September 5, 2012

A claim for medical malpractice against the New York City Health

by Stephen Bilkis

The Facts:

On 8 April 2005, the subject infant was born at a hospital. Allegedly, the infant sustained meconium aspiration syndrome and hypertonia as a result of the hospital’s mismanagement of the labor and delivery. Though the infant was transferred to another hospital on 9 April 2005 for almost two weeks, he was transferred back where he remained until 24 May 2005. Thereafter, he was treated at the same Hospital through 2006.

A claim for medical malpracticeagainst the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation thereafter ensued brought by the infant’s mother, individually and on behalf of her son, the subject infant. It is alleged that the infant suffers from brain injury and severe developmental delays.

Published on: September 3, 2012

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent,

by Stephen Bilkis

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice, the wife of the plaintiff Ulysses Simmons gave birth to their daughter, the infant plaintiff, Ivette Sheyanne Simmons, following what was an otherwise normal and uncomplicated pregnancy, via vaginal delivery after about two hours of labor, at the defendant Brooklyn Hospital Center (hereinafter refered to as the Hospital). However, according to medical records, the infant plaintiff was born macrosomic (excessive size), blue and diagnosed with fetal hydrops, also referred to as hydrops fetalis (total body edema) presumably due to intrauterine infection, resulting in anemia, thrombocytopenia (low platelet count), and brain hemorrhage. The infant was subsequently diagnosed with cerebral palsy involving global developmental delays and seizures.

The plaintiffs commenced this medical malpractice action against, among others, the defendant Snehaprabha Lotlikar (hereinafter Dr. Lotlikar), an employee of the defendant Bedford-Williamsburg Medical Group, which is also sued herein as the defendant Central Brooklyn Medical Group, P.C. (hereafter together Bedford-Williamsburg). Dr. Lotlikar saw the mother during the 34th week of pregnancy, and then again during the 35th to 36th week of pregnancy.

A Lawyer said that, plaintiffs alleged that Dr. Lotlikar deviated from accepted medical practice by failing to perform a sonogram on each of those visits, and that said departure was a proximate cause of the infant plaintiff’s birth injuries because it would have revealed her macrosomic condition and fetal hydrops, which in turn would have led to delivery via cesarean section. Additionally, the plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendant Phillipe J. Day (hereinafter Dr. Day), who was also employed by Bedford-Williamsburg, and who was involved in the first hour of the mother’s labor at the Hospital, alleging that he deviated from accepted medical practice by failing to perform a sonogram. The plaintiffs also sought relief against Dr. Waltrous, who was also employed by Bedford-Williamsburg, and who was involved in the second hour of the mother’s labor and actually delivered the infant plaintiff, alleging that she deviated from accepted medical practice by failing to perform a sonogram. The plaintiffs also sought relief against Patrick LeBlanc (hereafter Dr. LeBlanc), who was employed by the Hospital, and who treated the infant plaintiff immediately following her delivery in the Hospital’s neo-natal intensive care unit for her hydrops fetalis condition, alleging that he deviated from accepted medical practice by engaging in a more conservative course of treatment, rather than performing aggressive treatment referred to as paracentisis and thoracentesis (the insertion of tubes into the body to remove fluids therefrom). Additionally, the plaintiffs seek to hold the Hospital vicariously liable for Dr. LeBlanc’s alleged medical malpractice, and to hold Bedford-Williamsburg vicariously liable for the alleged medical malpractice of Drs. Lotlikar, Day, and Waltrous. The defendants’ moved and cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint insofar as the complaint asserted against them.

Published on: September 1, 2012

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent,

by Stephen Bilkis

In an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, a source said that, plaintiff Valerie Abdelkader, mother and natural guardian of Laila Abdelkader, alleged that Laila’s Erb’s Palsy injury was caused by the medical malpractice of the defendant doctor in connection with the obstetrical care administered at Laila’s birth on July 2, 1997. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against the defendant in the principal sums of $300,000 for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for future pain and suffering.

Thereafter, a source said that, the defendant appeals the judgment of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated October 17, 2007, which, upon a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff and against him finding that the plaintiff sustained damages in the principal sums of $300,000 for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for future pain and suffering, and upon an order of the same court dated May 31, 2007, which denied his motion pursuant to CPLR 4404 (a) to set aside the jury verdict as against the weight of the evidence or to set aside the damages award as excessive, is in favor of the plaintiff and against him in the principal sums of $300,000 for past pain and suffering and $500,000 for future pain and suffering.

The issue in this case is whether the damages in accordance with the evidence presented, awarded to the plaintiff is excessive.

Published on: August 28, 2012

On April 6, 2007, the New York State Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded

by Stephen Bilkis

On April 6, 2007, the New York State Emergency Medical Services (EMS) responded to a call just before ten at night to an apartment on Colonial Road in Brooklyn. The call was related to a twenty-five year old woman bleeding vaginally. Upon their arrival, the EMS team noticed that there was blood in the shower area and that the young woman who was seated on the commode was bleeding from her vagina. She was cold and clammy and was transported immediately. The EMS team asked her if she was pregnant or if she could be pregnant. She stated that she was not. However, upon admittance into the hospital at Lutheran Medical Center, the doctors discovered that it was clear that she had recently given birth to a child. The woman refused to admit that she had delivered a baby.

The hospital personnel contacted the police department to locate the baby. The police officers returned to the apartment and questioned the sister of the woman who was in the hospital. They told her that the hospital had said that there was a baby and that they needed to check on the welfare of the child. They repeatedly asked the sister where the baby was. She denied that there was a baby, but finally told them that there were several garbage bags outside in the cold night air behind the apartment. When the officers examined the contents of the garbage bags, they discovered the body of a newborn infant girl in the trash. She was still alive, but showing no signs of life other than being pink in color. She was intubated and transferred to the hospital for emergency medical care. The infant died shortly after arrival. Her cause of death was from exposure to the cold and hypoxia brought on by being tied up in a garbage bag.

The young woman was charged with homicide in causing the death of her newborn infant. The defense attorney filed a motion to suppress the evidence that was collected by the police officers because they contend that it should be excluded from the case under the exclusionary rule. Their contention was based on the idea that the police officers had responded to the location without a warrant and had located the infant based on confidential medical information that was illegally obtained.

Published on: August 25, 2012

Medical Malpractice Suit Finds Hospital Negligent

by Stephen Bilkis

A 30-year-old mother won a medical malpractice suit against a hospital. She was awarded $5 million. Her newborn’s birth injuries were the direct result of medical malpractice.

A source reports that medical records submitted to the court for the case show that the plaintiff’s medical history showed nothing to be concerned about in relation to her pregnancy. She had been progressing through her pregnancy normally as was expected. However, her midwife reports that she had to be taken to the hospital in the early stages of labor, dilated to 2cm.

An external fetal monitor was placed on her. About seven hours later, though, the monitor started detecting a decline in the baby’s heart rate, and was failing to show the complete tracing of the mother’s contractions.

Published on: July 28, 2012

Birth Injury Malpractice Suit Settles for $8.5 Million

by Stephen Bilkis

A medical malpractice case involving a 5 year old boy has been settled with $8.5 million in damages. The trial was settled after just three days. A report read by the Queens judge explains that the settlement has been awarded to help provide ongoing medical care for the young boy for the rest of his life.

Injuries were caused to the little boy as a result of negligence of medical staff during the birth of the boy. The five year old still suffers from seizures as a result of the problems during his birth. He is also unable to see, hold his head up, or walk unassisted. He will need round the clock medical care for the rest of his life. All of his medical problems are caused due to mistakes which were made during his delivery which resulted in serious brain damage.

The start of the delivery seemed to be OK at first. However, at 9 AM, doctors were concerned for the welfare of the baby because the heart rate dropped suddenly explained the nurse. His heart rate was at a healthy 140 beats per minute, but then it dropped suddenly to 60 beats per minute.

Published on: June 18, 2012

Medical Mistake Rips Family Apart

by Stephen Bilkis

A Los Angeles Superior Court judge has ruled that a paraplegic mother has the right to visit with her children. The woman gave birth to triplets four years ago, but she was left as a paraplegic due to multiple medical mistakes.

In 2006, the 34-year old mother was giving birth at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center in Los Angeles, CA. The hospital told a source that the healthy woman had just given birth to her daughter and one of her sons. During the delivery of her second son, the doctor accidentally nicked her uterus. As the doctors worked to stop the bleeding, her heart stopped. To make bad matters even worse, the defibrillator created in The Bronx and Brooklyn malfunctioned. By the time, doctors resuscitated the woman her brain had been deprived of oxygen for too long. This left her with permanent brain damage. Her husband, not believing she would ever recover, filed for divorce a year later. It was his decision not to allow his ex-wife to see the children that she almost gave her life while giving birth to them. He reasoned that seeing their mother in that condition would be too traumatic for them.

As part of the judge’s 10-page ruling, the children and their mother must be allowed visitation for five days each year. These visitations are to be for three-hours each day. The ruling further states that the children are to be allowed to communicate with their mother once a month via Skype. During the mother and children’s visitation time, the children’s father will determine who will be in the room, and he has already expressed that the children’s grandmother will not be permitted in the room, sources told to a reporter. The judge also refuted the children’s father’s claim by saying that “There is no compelling evidence that visitation with Abbie will be detrimental to the children.”