Appeals Court Finds for Plaintiff in Delivery Room Negligence Case

A Wisconsin appeals court has ruled in favor of the plaintiff in a delivery room negligence case, determining expert testimony presented at the original trial was permissible. The plaintiffs used expert testimony from another physician that asserted medical negligence during delivery led to the permanent injuries to the plaintiffs’ newborn son.

The appeals court also determined the plaintiffs’ counsel did not make statements that prejudiced the defense during closing arguments, further strengthening the plaintiffs’ case against the physician in charge of the birth of their child.

Lawsuit alleges medical negligence

The original lawsuit was filed in 2008 by parents who asserted that the physician overseeing the birth did not take proper steps in determining the weight of the unborn child before choosing to use a vacuum-assisted delivery technique. The parents claim the device led to a serious birth complication known as shoulder dystocia, which was improperly managed during the labor.

In their original complaint, the plaintiff parents allege the physician overseeing the delivery failed to execute a standard of prenatal care that could have prevented their child’s injury. Specifically, plaintiffs claim the physician failed to perform proper testing to diagnose gestational diabetes in the plaintiff mother and failed to perform an ultrasound prior to the birth of the child to accurately assess fetal birth weight. Plaintiffs also state in their complaint that the physician used vacuum-assisted delivery on their infant, despite the concern over a potentially large birth weight.

Shoulder dystocia complications

As a result of using the vacuum device on a child with an excessively large birth weight (nine pounds, 12 ounces) the labor was further complicated by shoulder dystocia. Shoulder dystocia occurs when the baby’s shoulder gets lodged in the birth canal, often behind the mother’s pubic bone. If excess pressure is placed on the shoulder in an effort to dislodge the baby, nerve injury can result. In severe cases, this injury can impact the baby’s shoulder, arm and hand function for a lifetime.

Risk factors for shoulder dystocia, according to the March of Dimes, includes maternal obesity, gestational diabetes or a large birth weight for the baby. In this case, the mother plaintiff stated she began her pregnancy at 269 pounds, a weight that was classified as obese. The plaintiff also stated results of a one-hour glucose test were concerning and should have warranted a second three-hour test to confirm or discard a diagnosis of gestational diabetes.

Expert witness affirmed

The plaintiff’s claims of delivery room negligence were backed up in court by a physician that was called as an expert witness in the case. The defendant refuted the testimony, stating the doctor’s statements were a matter of “personal preference,” rather than “reliable principles or methods.” The defendant also asserted that the witnesses’ testimony was not based on any medical literature.

The appeals court rejected the defendant’s claims, stating the expert testimony did indeed meet the governing admissibility of expert testimony. In addition, the appeals court determined the plaintiff’s counsel did not prejudice the jury during closing statements. Therefore, the appeals court decided that the original decision of the circuit court, which ruled in favor of the plaintiff and entered a judgment of nearly $900,000, would stand.

Resources Resources