Dr. A performed biopsies on several women that same day; all were sent to the same laboratory for analysis. Dr. A and the laboratory failed to properly label and handle the biopsy specimens. Incorrect diagnosis caused her to undergo unnecessary mastectomy, lymph node biopsy, and a long, complicated breast reconstruction.
The case was settled at trial.
A $1,780,000 Virginia settlement was reached.
Related article: Does screening mammography save lives? Janelle Yates (April 2014)
A 19-year-old mother had regular prenatal care. In early June, she weighed 221 lb and had a fundal height of 36 cm. The certified nurse midwife (CNM) noted little fetal movement, was uncertain of the fetal position, and made a note to check the amniotic fluid at the next visit. A week later, US did not indicate a decrease in amniotic fluid. Records do not indicate that the amniotic fluid index was checked at the next visit (38 weeks’ gestation).
Two days later, the patient reported decreased fetal movement. At the ED, nonreassuring fetal heart tracings were recorded. Fifteen minutes later, the fetal heart rate fell to 50 bpm and did not recover. The on-call ObGyn artificially ruptured the membranes and placed a direct fetal lead. An emergency cesarean delivery was performed in 15 minutes through thick meconium.
Apgar scores were 0, 2, and 4 at 1, 5, and 10 minutes, respectively. The baby weighed 4 lb 4 oz, and was transferred to a children’s hospital, where she stayed for 6 weeks. She suffered seizures and was tube fed. The child has cerebral palsy and profound neurologic impairment. At age 7, she is unable to speak.
The CNM was negligent for not being more proactive when she questioned the amniotic fluid index and noted reduced fetal movement in early June and at subsequent visits. The presence of meconium at birth attested that the fetus had been in distress.
The case was settled at trial.
A $2 million Massachusetts settlement was reached.
These cases were selected by the editors of OBG Management from Medical Malpractice Verdicts, Settlements & Experts, with permission of the editor, Lewis Laska (www.verdictslaska.com). The information available to the editors about the cases presented here is sometimes incomplete. Moreover, the cases may or may not have merit. Nevertheless, these cases represent the types of clinical situations that typically result in litigation and are meant to illustrate nationwide variation in jury verdicts and awards.
Drop us a line and let us know what you think about this or other current articles, which topics you'd like to see covered in future issues, and what challenges you face in daily practice. Tell us what you think by emailing us at: obg@frontlinemedcom.com Please include your name, city and state.
