/ /

  • linkedin
  • Increase Font
  • Sharebar

    Early delivery to blame for child’s disability?

    Parents question if correct standards were followed to protect the pregnancy

    Facts

    Then age 29, the plaintiff mother was treated prenatally at the co-defendant ob/gyn office from May 16, 2008 to October 1, 2008. During that time she was treated there by several defendants, including Drs. A and B, who were employed by that office, and by Dr. C, the co-defendant who owned the office.

    During her initial visit the patient gave her last menstrual period as March 1 and, as a result, her estimated date of delivery was determined to be December 23, 2008 (later adjusted by ultrasound to be December 19). The woman gave a history of being seen in the emergency department (ED) on May 10 for bleeding. The evaluation done in the ED was within normal limits but, because of the bleeding, an ultrasound was performed at the codefendant ob/gyn office on May 20, which revealed a bicornuate uterus and a 2.2 x 1.3 cm subchorionic bleed in the left horn of the uterus.

    On June 20, upon the referral of Dr. A, the plaintiff had an another ultrasound, a nuchal translucency study, and fetal anatomic scan. Results were normal and the placenta was noted to be anterior. On June 27, when the patient returned to the codefendant ob/gyn office for her scheduled visit and was seen by Dr. C, her physical examination was within normal limits and the ob/gyn noted “stain improved.”

    On August 4 when the patient was seen by Dr. B for heavy vaginal bleeding, an ultrasound was interpreted as showing “echogenic area seen at the cervical os. No color flow seen within, probably blood clot measured 6.9 x 6.7 cm.” A handwritten notation in the sonogram report indicated that the cervix was closed, positive fetal heart movement was noted, and that the report was discussed with the patient. The patient was advised to have “bed rest for now” and have a repeat ultrasound in 2 days to reassess the situation, and return to the office in 1 week.

    Pursuant to this recommendation, a transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS) was performed on August 6. It revealed no issues with the infant and showed a closed cervix that measured 4 cm. It also confirmed that the placenta was anterior but showed an anterior accessory lobe that was in complete previa (correlated to the “clot” seen on the transabdominal sonogram).

    At 1:30 pm on September 14, the plaintiff was admitted to Labor and Delivery (L&D) for 31 hours for complaints of vaginal bleeding, which started that morning at 10:30 am and filled 1 pad, and for low back pain for the past 2 days, with no contractions. She was seen by Dr. A and minimal bleeding was noted. A history of low-grade placenta with an accessory placental lobe in complete previa was noted, but Dr. A amended this report based on an ultrasound performed during the admission, which revealed that a small clot was identified in the canal and that only fluid was below the head, not placenta. The study also revealed a long (4.9 cm) and closed cervix. Dr. D, the ob covering L&D, recommended nifedipine 2 mg every 6 hours and betamethasone for fetal lung maturity. The patient was given nifedipine 4 times and betamethasone twice. Dr. D also commented that there may be a minor placental abruption. Fetal monitoring was continued throughout the admission. Fetal movement and a reassuring heart rate were noted.

    Recommended: Claim of failure to test for cystic fibrosis

    At 6:20 am on September 15, 2 decelerations into the 70s, each lasting 1 minute, were noted, with spontaneous return each time and no further late decelerations. The patient was seen by Anesthesia in case cesarean delivery was needed, and monitoring and steroids were continued. Dr. A saw the patient again prior to discharge, noted that there was “? chronic abruption” and recommended that she follow up in 2 days and call if there was any bleeding, pain, or decreased fetal movement. Per a nurse’s note, there was no active bleeding, so the patient was discharged home at 8:30 pm The discharge note directs “complete bed rest with bathroom privileges.”

    A TVUS done during the woman’s hospitalization showed a cervical length of 3.2 cm with no funneling and no sonographic evidence of subchorionic hematoma or separation. The placenta was anterior with no previa. No mention was made of a clot. The measurements were consistent with a gestational age of 24 weeks/3 days. The scan also showed that most of the amniotic fluid was in the left horn of the uterus and that the fetus, with a small amount of amniotic fluid, was in the right horn of the uterus. The estimated fetal weight was in the 29th percentile and a follow-up scan was recommended in 3 weeks to check fetal growth.

    The plaintiff was next seen on September 17, by Dr. A at the codefendant ob/gyn office. Dr. A noted the fetal heart rate (FHR) to be in the 140s, positive fetal movement, and “no bleeding or cramping.” It was noted that the plaintiff was counselled on the signs of preterm labor. On that date, the patient was also referred to a maternal-fetal medicine specialist (MFM). The “Impression/Plan” from her first visit to the MFM, Dr. E, on September 25 states that an ultrasound performed did not show any subchorionic hematoma and the cervix measured 4 cm. Dr. E recommended continued modified bedrest and complete pelvic rest and wanted to see the woman again in 2 weeks.

    The patient’s last prenatal visit at the codefendant ob/gyn office was on October 1, at which time she was again seen by Dr. C. All appeared to be within normal limits and Dr. C noted that the patient was “seeing MFM weekly.” The plaintiff was seen again by Dr. E the next day and no bleeding was reported since her last visit. A TVUS was performed and the cervix was measured as 3.78 cm but it also showed a subchorionic hematoma in front of the internal os, which measured 2.1 x .9 cm. Dr. E noted that this was different from the scan done on September 15, which showed no hematoma. His impression was “chorionic abruption” and he instructed the patient to return in 2 weeks and to call if she had bleeding, contractions, or loss of fluid.

    The plaintiff presented to the defendant hospital’s L&D ward on October 13 at 7:21 am. At that time, she was 29 6/7 weeks pregnant and complained of intermittent lower abdominal pain for 3 days, which worsened today, and brownish/pink discharge. FHR monitoring was begun and was reassuring in the 150s without contractions. The patient reported fetal movement. An ultrasound performed by Dr. E at approximately 8:00 am showed a cervical length of 1.4 to 1.8 cm without funneling and a subchorionic hematoma. A sterile vagina exam performed at that time by the resident was positive for nitrazine (without pooling) and revealed brown staining and a closed, soft, and posterior cervix. Dr. E recommended that the woman be admitted to L&D for observation and “monitor for contractions, would tocolyze with Nifedipine.” His note also said that the plan was discussed with Dr. C.

    NEXT: Allegations and discovery

    Andrew I Kaplan, Esq
    Mr. Kaplan is a partner at Aaronson, Rappaport, Feinstein & Deutsch, LLP, specializing in medical malpractice defense and healthcare ...

    1 Comment

    You must be signed in to leave a comment. Registering is fast and free!

    All comments must follow the ModernMedicine Network community rules and terms of use, and will be moderated. ModernMedicine reserves the right to use the comments we receive, in whole or in part,in any medium. See also the Terms of Use, Privacy Policy and Community FAQ.

    • [email protected]
      How can you bring a suit without an expert willing to testify that the care was outside the expected standard?

    Poll

    Latest Tweets Follow