$97 Million Verdict In Iowa Case

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.

2021Doctor

Membership Revoked
Removed
10+ Year Member
Joined
Apr 29, 2013
Messages
486
Reaction score
693
Published: Mar. 24, 2022 at 1:31 PM CDT|Updated: Mar. 24, 2022 at 2:07 PM CDT

IOWA CITY, Iowa (KCRG/Gray News) – A family at the center of a medical malpractice lawsuit in Iowa was awarded $97.4 million after their newborn was left with severe brain damage, requiring lifelong medical care.

The lawsuit states the baby was in fetal distress during the birth in August 2018 and was not receiving enough oxygen to the brain, a signal that a cesarean section should have been performed to keep the child safe.


Members don't see this ad.
 
Published: Mar. 24, 2022 at 1:31 PM CDT|Updated: Mar. 24, 2022 at 2:07 PM CDT

IOWA CITY, Iowa (KCRG/Gray News) – A family at the center of a medical malpractice lawsuit in Iowa was awarded $97.4 million after their newborn was left with severe brain damage, requiring lifelong medical care.

The lawsuit states the baby was in fetal distress during the birth in August 2018 and was not receiving enough oxygen to the brain, a signal that a cesarean section should have been performed to keep the child safe.


Bad case.

The details are scant but you can't really defend using forceps and then a vacuum.

Lawyer contends a c section should have been done (unsure if the infant delivered vaginally or not)

I know there is a big push to reduce c section rates, but let this be a lesson to any obstetrician out there that you really don't get any points for eeking out every vaginal delivery.

With how malpractice lawsuits are structured in this country, you have to practice defensively.

Who cares what your c section rate is? You want an undamaged baby and mom at the end of the day. If that results in a higher c section rate, so be it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It's easy to play Monday morning QB, but attempting vacuum after failed forceps is a definite no-no. This is a sad case all around, but it also reminder about defensive medicine. Specifically, don't do things that you won't be able to defend if things go wrong.
 
Top