Re: Birth trauma matter settles for $1.3M
From: Joe Cutchin (forcep@intercom.net)
Wed Oct 25 08:52:14 2006
Andrew: ACOG????? Why would our "own" organization to whom we pay big
bucks do that? Joe C
Andrew Folley wrote:
> There is a definite injury to the plaintiff minor. There is a definiet
> contract of care between the physician and the plaintiff. Only two
> qeustions remain. Was there a breach in the standard of care and was
> that breach causally related to the injury. I am not sure what it means
> that "amniotic fluid shwoed no evidence of infection". If the gram
> stain was negative, the culture grew nothing out and the fluid glucose
> was normal and LDH low(ie LDH elevation, gluscose less than 15mg% in
> fluid and elevated wbc imply infection. I would alwo want to know what
> the mosm initial CRP value was and her wbc level. Chorioamnionitis
> would be a contraindciation to use of the rescue cerclage.
> A better choice perhaps would have been to hospitalize until delivery
> and do nothing other than IV antiboitics for moms protection.
>
> Apparently the plaintiffs lawyers were not worried about the above .They
> felt the breach was in failing to do the wet prep. It seems like the
> defense arguments reasonably refuted the plaintiffs charge, based on the
> literature regarding BV.
>
> Our problem is that we have neither a court of law or jof ustice. It
> is more a court of sympathy and pragmatic need. 9 or 10 jurors see a
> horribly crippled child who is going to require millions of dollars in
> costs over then next 50 years and someone should have to pay. No one
> else is available other than for the phsycian. Most of our malpractice
> awards have nothing to do with malpractice.
>
> Our malpractice problem could be solved when ACOG says that we will no
> longer pay outrageous malpractice premiums. ACOG needs to propose or
> establish a nationla heath fund. The 40,000 docs will pay their $60,000
> to $100,000 yearly premiums into a national fund (collectively 2
> billion $2,000,000,000). This unfortunate case could have been ealsily
> resolved with paying out 2 or 3 million instead of 1.6 and the monies
> could have been entirely used for the care of the child instead of 1/3
> going to the plaintiffls lawyers. andrew
>
>> From: GIN11153@aol.com
>> Reply-To: ob-gyn-l@obgyn.net
>> To: Multiple recipients of list OB-GYN-L <ob-gyn-l@dns.obgyn.net>
>> Subject: Birth trauma matter settles for $1.3M Date: Wed, 25 Oct
>> 2006 01:50:57 -0500
>>
>> Article of the week from Michigan Lawyers Weekly:
>> Birth trauma matter settles for $1.3M
>> Mother's infection not diagnosed, treated
>> The plaintiff began prenatal care when she became pregnant. She had a
>> history
>> of one prior miscarriage.
>> At 21 weeks' gestation, the plaintiff began having spotting and went
>> to the
>> hospital. Examination showed her cervix to be 3 cm dilated, 100 percent
>> effaced, and her membranes to be bulging.
>> Testing was done, which showed no infection. Amniotic fluid testing
>> showed no
>> intra-amniotic infection. However, amniotic fluid showed evidence of an
>> elevated white count. An emergency cerclage was placed for an
>> incompetent cervix.
>>
>> Read the rest here:
>> _http://www.milawyersweekly.com/feature.cfm_
>> (http://www.milawyersweekly.com/feature.cfm)
>> Not sure I agree with the outcome and am opening it for discussion
>> please.
>> Gail Neuman RNC CPHW SNP LNC
>> student nurse practitioner and student midwife
>> Proud member of LegalNurseConsulting2@yahoogroups.com
>> certified high risk OB/legal nurse consultant
>> Perinatal Nurse Associates
>> Notary Public/Certified Loan Signing Agent
>> PrePaid Legal Sales Associate
>> Santa Ana, CA
>
|
|
