- Joined
- Sep 17, 2003
- Messages
- 573
- Reaction score
- 10
Discussed here an April 2004 case in Louisville, KY and the state jury trial review journal just came out with it's review of the case. Journal is not online so this is a paraphrase of some of the review by a KY lawyer from another discussion board. Can anyone answer some questions for me?
1. Is it standard practice for an OB 30 days out of residency to have full hospital priveledges? One claim in the case is that she should not have been delivering "unsupervised" while still a "neophyte"... Is this true? Is a doc a "neophyte" after an OB residency? Sounds like a ridiculous claim to me.
2. How many births would an OB just out of residency have performed?
3. The review describes the labor as (again,paraphrase here)"afters 10 hours of pitocin induced labor, Dr S. attempted to perform a vacuum extraction. This added another hour before the decision to perform a C-section""... any part of that statement sound like a breach of standards? Or obvious negligence?... meaning, is 10 hours unusual? What do they base the decision to cut on (in simple terms if possible)?
4. In the original news articles about the case, the hospitals attorney said they had XRAY evidence that the brain damage occured in the last 30 minutes of delivery and was unavoidable. When/Why would they get a scan during a delivery, and how could they tell damage?
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
1. Is it standard practice for an OB 30 days out of residency to have full hospital priveledges? One claim in the case is that she should not have been delivering "unsupervised" while still a "neophyte"... Is this true? Is a doc a "neophyte" after an OB residency? Sounds like a ridiculous claim to me.
2. How many births would an OB just out of residency have performed?
3. The review describes the labor as (again,paraphrase here)"afters 10 hours of pitocin induced labor, Dr S. attempted to perform a vacuum extraction. This added another hour before the decision to perform a C-section""... any part of that statement sound like a breach of standards? Or obvious negligence?... meaning, is 10 hours unusual? What do they base the decision to cut on (in simple terms if possible)?
4. In the original news articles about the case, the hospitals attorney said they had XRAY evidence that the brain damage occured in the last 30 minutes of delivery and was unavoidable. When/Why would they get a scan during a delivery, and how could they tell damage?
Any info would be greatly appreciated.
