Healthcare providers who recklessly cause their patients harm are often reluctant to concede their liability. Additionally, in some cases, they may go so far as to attempt to dismiss the plaintiff’s claims prior to trial. If the evidence demonstrates a disputed issue of fact, though, the plaintiff should be able to pursue their claims, as demonstrated in a recent New York ruling. If you sustained injuries because of inadequate medical care, it is smart to meet with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney regarding your options.
Facts of the Case and Procedural History
It it reported that the plaintiff, who was admitted to the defendant hospital on July 1, 2012, one week past her due date. Various medical interventions were employed to induce labor, including the use of Cervidil, a Cook’s cervical balloon, and Pitocin. Throughout the labor process, the plaintiff experienced complications, including recurrent decelerations in the fetal heart rate. Despite repeated requests for a Cesarean section, the defendant doctor attempted a vacuum extraction, which was unsuccessful. An emergency C-section was eventually performed, but the child was born in serious condition, requiring resuscitation and intensive care. The child died eight days later due to perinatal anoxic/ischemic encephalopathy.
Allegedly, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit individually and as the administrator of her child’s estate, asserting claims for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent. The trial court denied the defendant hospital’s motion for summary judgment and denied the defendant doctor’s motion for partial summary judgment regarding the lack of informed consent claim. The defendants appealed.
Grounds for Granting a Motion for Summary Judgment
The appellate court reviewed the arguments presented by both defendants. The defendant doctor argued that the plaintiff could not recover emotional damages for lack of informed consent because the child was born alive and the plaintiff did not suffer independent physical injuries. The defendant hospital contended it should not be held vicariously liable for nursing care due to the plaintiff’s discontinuation of the case against the nurse, and that no triable issues of fact regarding nursing and neonatal care existed.
The court examined the applicability of the Sheppard-Mobley decision, which precludes recovery for emotional harm in ordinary medical malpractice cases where the child is born alive and the mother suffers no physical injuries. However, the court distinguished the present case by highlighting that lack of informed consent is a separate and distinct cause of action from ordinary medical malpractice, involving different legal elements and considerations.
The court found that there were triable issues of fact regarding whether the plaintiff had consented to the use of the vacuum extractor and whether the hospital’s actions contributed to the child’s injuries and death. Specifically, the consent form did not explicitly mention vacuum extraction, and there were discrepancies about the timing and response to the fetal heart rate decelerations.
Ultimately, the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s decision, allowing the plaintiff’s claims to proceed. The court held that a mother could recover for emotional damages resulting from lack of informed consent, even if the child was born alive, thus potentially revisiting the principles established in Sheppard-Mobley in light of the specific facts and legal issues of this case.
Speak to an Assertive Rochester Medical Malpractice Lawyer
If you sustained damages due to the negligence of your healthcare provider, you have the right to seek compensation, and you should speak to an attorney. The tenacious Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can review your injuries and help you pursue compensation for your losses. You can reach us by calling 833-200-2000 or by filling out our online form to schedule an appointment.