Louisville jury to decide case of baby decapitated during birth

[Paige SC]

quite possibly one of the most horrendous stories I have EVER read - BUT I don't believe the md was solely responsible. nor do I think this woman is entitled to millions because of it. I agree with the above poster who smells heavy litigation and some untruths to make it appear more 'malpractice' friendly.

 

[Storm]

quite possibly one of the most horrendous stories I have EVER read - BUT I don't believe the md was solely responsible. nor do I think this woman is entitled to millions because of it. I agree with the above poster who smells heavy litigation and some untruths to make it appear more 'malpractice' friendly.

I just hope cases like this doesn't force hospitals to do sections just to prevent liability..the baby wasn't viable. My son is an MD in a hospital setting and I know it sounds horrid..but lots of things are not the Dr's fault and are horrid. ^i^

 

[Paige SC]

If the baby wasn't viable then why was she compensated? :furious:

 

[Kimberlyd125]

The article explains how this was handled and it's horrific if you ask me.

They ignored buzzer calls even as the baby was being born.
They sutured the babies head back on it's body and let the woman hold it when IMO that should not have been allowed.

And then there is this (from link in the opening post):

Mathys said Dr. Joseph Bilotta failed to remove a cerclage, a string similar to a shoelace, that was used to keep Donelson's cervix closed and the child in the womb. When Donelson began delivering, the string acted as a noose around the babys neck and helped cause the decapitation.

 

[Paige SC]

The article explains how this was handled and it's horrific if you ask me.

They ignored buzzer calls even as the baby was being born.
They sutured the babies head back on it's body and let the woman hold it when IMO that should not have been allowed.

And then there is this (from link in the opening post):

Mathys said Dr. Joseph Bilotta failed to remove a cerclage, a string similar to a shoelace, that was used to keep Donelson's cervix closed and the child in the womb. When Donelson began delivering, the string acted

I don't think that they could legally deny the mother seeing / holding her baby, though? It IS horrific but if the mother wanted to hold her baby they would have had to suture the head back on? Ignoring buzzer calls and/or not removing the cerclage is a different matter altogther but I'm not sure it rises to a material deviation in the standard of care. If the baby was already dead they were only legally responsible for caring for the mother and I'm not sure where the deviation comes into play in terms of compensation and/or malpractice?

 

[Kimberlyd125]

If failing to remove a string that is designed to keep the baby in before delivery is not malpractice I don't know what is.

JMO

 

[Kimberlyd125]

The baby was not already dead during the delivery.
(according to the article)

I have read several cases of a 21 week old fetus surviving.

 

[Paige SC]

OK, now I'm confused? Was the baby viable or not? :bang:

 

[Kimberlyd125]

The dr says no. But that does not mean he was dead before the decapitation.

IMO that means he would not have survived long after birth.

But, IMO him being not viable is opinion because there have been babies born at 21-24 weeks that have survived.

Looks like Mom's attorneys are saying she was 24 weeks, the doctors are saying 21 weeks.

 

[Paige SC]

The docs are saying the string was in fact removed prior to attempted delivery. I'm sorry, I know this is a VERY tragic case but she was told the baby was not viable and wouldn't make it. I know babies can and do survive at that age but the exception proves the rule. I agree that her body simply rejected this baby. As for her feeling him kicking and wanting to be born - I don't buy it. I have my personal reasons for this. I think it was a horrible accident but I don't think it went down as she said it did and the mds were firm in their 'no fault' position. They asked for over 18 mil and received 1.4 mil (which I still think is too much). Had this been a viable pregnancy or a decapitation caused by negligence (the cerclage) or too much force, then I would support the 18 mil. I think it was a tragic accident VERY tragic but no one was negligent or remiss in care. JMHO

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...ky-doctor-sued-decapitated-baby-delivery.html

Edited to ad this article where the MD states the baby had died prior to delivery..

http://www.courier-journal.com/arti...he-did-best-could-decapitated-baby-s-delivery

There is also conflicting information on how much of this the mother actually witnessed. The fetus' head was trapped under her pelvic bone so chances are while the md was trying to free the head she was laying flat on her back. The cervix just isn't prepared to delivery a baby at that gestation.This is what I suspect caused the decapitation, in part. With such a young fetus I imagine it would be easy to do . Nonetheless, even without drapes her view would be obstructed as to what she could *see*. I remember when mine were born I couldn't see squat, even with the aid of a mirror. I'm not trying to downplay the tragedy here because it's absolutely knee buckling.. but just using a little common sense I don't see where the negligence fell on the md's and it's hard for me to buy her story as told.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

So it's basically who you believe.

Her word against theirs.

 

[animlzrule]

The docs are saying the string was in fact removed prior to attempted delivery. I'm sorry, I know this is a VERY tragic case but she was told the baby was not viable and wouldn't make it. I know babies can and do survive at that age but the exception proves the rule. I agree that her body simply rejected this baby. As for her feeling him kicking and wanting to be born - I don't buy it. I have my personal reasons for this. I think it was a horrible accident but I don't think it went down as she said it did and the mds were firm in their 'no fault' position. They asked for over 18 mil and received 1.4 mil (which I still think is too much). Had this been a viable pregnancy or a decapitation caused by negligence (the cerclage) or too much force, then I would support the 18 mil. I think it was a tragic accident VERY tragic but no one was negligent or remiss in care. JMHO

http://www.azcentral.com/news/artic...ky-doctor-sued-decapitated-baby-delivery.html

Edited to ad this article where the MD states the baby had died prior to delivery..

http://www.courier-journal.com/arti...he-did-best-could-decapitated-baby-s-delivery

There is also conflicting information on how much of this the mother actually witnessed. The fetus' head was trapped under her pelvic bone so chances are while the md was trying to free the head she was laying flat on her back. The cervix just isn't prepared to delivery a baby at that gestation.This is what I suspect caused the decapitation, in part. With such a young fetus I imagine it would be easy to do . Nonetheless, even without drapes her view would be obstructed as to what she could *see*. I remember when mine were born I couldn't see squat, even with the aid of a mirror. I'm not trying to downplay the tragedy here because it's absolutely knee buckling.. but just using a little common sense I don't see where the negligence fell on the md's and it's hard for me to buy her story as told.

I suspect the compensation was a matter of doing what is right versus what was legally obligated. The plaintiff's allegations seemed off to me, and I've no doubt that the lawyers really piled on the prejudicial language used in the suit. The fact that such an enormous sum of damages were sought tells me that they knew it was very unlikely they would get even close to the requested amount. It's such a tragic case for everyone involved. And BTW, can you just imagine the subsequent pregnancy? I'm assuming she was monitored by a perinatologist given her history--imagine the nerves of steel that doctor had to have had in order to take her on! And as gruesome as suturing the baby's head on to the body sounds, as well as the image it provokes for me, what an act of kindness and compassion on the part of the staff to have attempted to give her the gift of holding the baby and grieving her loss. It was a no-win situation for all. No amount of money can compensate for having gone through such an experience. Whether or not the baby was viable probably can't be proven, nor can negligence on the part of the physicians. Not to mention if the baby had been born alive, the fact that she likely would have faced years if not a whole lifetime of physical, intellectual and emotional challenges. We all know there are many in our country who don't care so much about what happens to babies once they are born and become citizens who rely on so called "entitlement" programs.... Hopefully the money can be used to provide counseling and financial support so that mom can take care of her daughter and focus on healing without a lot of the financial stressors people normally face when raising a family. The final award does seem high and arbitrary to me, but if I had been on the jury I think I would've had a very hard time not awarding any damages. And I think the amount awarded sends a pretty clear message to the hospital and staff that the allegations of negligence and callous response were not found to be valid.

 

[animlzrule]

I should also add that in light of the verdict I still feel that this thread is in the wrong section. I don't think the fact that a "crime" was committed was proven given the verdict and compensation awarded.

 

[Melanie]

How incredibly sad. The notion that this baby was kicking feet first when being born just boggles my mind. This is what the mother said.

Can you imagine living with that for the rest of your life? The mother must agonize over how the baby suffered if in fact it was alive before the decapitation. What horror.

I am in agreement that she be compensated, but wonder how much will go to the attorney's. And I'm sure the hospital will appeal and settle for an undisclosed sum in the end (those cases tend to work out that way).

I hope in all of this that she is able to find peace and begin to heal.

MOO

Mel

 

[AnaTeresa]

How incredibly sad. The notion that this baby was kicking feet first when being born just boggles my mind. This is what the mother said.

Can you imagine living with that for the rest of your life? The mother must agonize over how the baby suffered if in fact it was alive before the decapitation. What horror.

I am in agreement that she be compensated, but wonder how much will go to the attorney's. And I'm sure the hospital will appeal and settle for an undisclosed sum in the end (those cases tend to work out that way).

I hope in all of this that she is able to find peace and begin to heal.

MOO

Mel

In general, tort lawyers (which include personal injury) agree to take a case for 1/3 of its award. Depending on the personal situation of the client/nature of the case, some lawyers will set a flat fee up front.

 

[UdbCrzy2]

Jury awards nearly $1.4 million to mother in baby decapitation case

Under the verdict, reached after about five hours of deliberation, the two doctors involved must pay the mother, Micheatria Donelson, the $1.4 million for pain and suffering.

The hospital and the nurses involved in the case were not held liable, and the jury declined to award punitive damages.

http://www.courier-journal.com/arti...capitation-case?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|News

 

[PeteyGirl]

There was no "crime" committed here, and an autopsy (I wonder if one was even done?) would show an accurate gestational date.

What I understand to be the crucial difference in a "viable" baby versus "unviable", at that stage of development, is the progression of blood supply to the alveoli of the lungs. Prior to 22 weeks, most babies do not have blood supply and alveoli hooked up so oxygen etc can be exchanged. So viability versus not would be as simple as examining the baby's lungs.

So I'm wondering if an autopsy was even done. The mother would have had the final say. Why else would there be any question about the baby's viability?

An autopsy would have removed doubt about viability, whether the infant was deceased prior to the birth and how long (roughly) prior. What about fetal monitoring prior to the birth? I am not an OB/GYN nurse, only know about it from basic RN ed. Would they continue fetal monitoring during the birth of a preemie who is not expected to live through it? Or would they stop monitoring?

Seems to me that typical, routine medical records (including autopsy) would have made the gestational age/viability a moot point, as well as whether or not this all happened to a living or dead child. So how could these FACTS even be argued and "their word against hers"? That's what I don't understand.

I can understand why a mother, already in terrible grief, would believe a "crime" happened, under these circumstances. But that our legal system found a way TO MAKE it a crime is what bothers me. My sympathy is with the mother, of course, but not with her taking it in the direction she did.

 

[Kimberlyd125]

I think more people than just the mother believe a crime was committed.

JMO

 

[animlzrule]

Thank you to whoever moved this thread to a more appropriate section....

 

[Paige SC]

there was no "crime" committed here, and an autopsy (i wonder if one was even done?) would show an accurate gestational date.

What i understand to be the crucial difference in a "viable" baby versus "unviable", at that stage of development, is the progression of blood supply to the alveoli of the lungs. Prior to 22 weeks, most babies do not have blood supply and alveoli hooked up so oxygen etc can be exchanged. So viability versus not would be as simple as examining the baby's lungs.

So i'm wondering if an autopsy was even done. The mother would have had the final say. Why else would there be any question about the baby's viability?

An autopsy would have removed doubt about viability, whether the infant was deceased prior to the birth and how long (roughly) prior. What about fetal monitoring prior to the birth? I am not an ob/gyn nurse, only know about it from basic rn ed. Would they continue fetal monitoring during the birth of a preemie who is not expected to live through it? Or would they stop monitoring?

Seems to me that typical, routine medical records (including autopsy) would have made the gestational age/viability a moot point, as well as whether or not this all happened to a living or dead child. So how could these facts even be argued and "their word against hers"? That's what i don't understand.

I can understand why a mother, already in terrible grief, would believe a "crime" happened, under these circumstances. But that our legal system found a way to make it a crime is what bothers me. My sympathy is with the mother, of course, but not with her taking it in the direction she did.

great post..