Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW
Beginning in June, Thomson Reuters News & Insight content will be available exclusively on WestlawNext®, as part of its Practitioner Insights offering. On June 21, the Thomson Reuters News & Insight website, iPhone® app and newsletters will be discontinued. See Frequently Asked Questions to learn more.

New York Legal

  •  
  •  

Medical equipment REUTERS Lucas Jackson

Medical malpractice lawsuit tossed by appeals court

3/1/2012 COMMENTS (2)

NEW YORK, March 1 (Reuters) - A woman whose fetus was stillborn cannot sue the doctor who performed an emergency Caesarian section in a futile attempt to save its life, an appeals court ruled Thursday.

In dismissing malpractice claims brought by the mother, Katherine De Jesus, against Dr. Aruna Mishra, the Appellate Division, First Department, rejected what it called De Jesus's "extraordinary" legal argument.

While De Jesus is pursuing claims against the Bronx-Lebanon Hospital and other staff for failing to immediately notice the fetus' heart problems, those claims could not be pressed against Mishra, since she was called after the problem became clear and did not allow an excessive amount of time to elapse between her diagnosis and the surgery, the court wrote.

Instead, De Jesus offered an alternate theory that the court found untenable.

"It is based on the notion that Dr. Mishra should not have proceeded with the c-section because in the intervening minutes between her diagnosis of fetal distress and her commencement of the procedure, it appeared that the fetus had died," wrote Justice David Saxe for a unanimous five-judge panel.

The court said there was no factual basis for asserting that Mishra could have concluded the fetus was beyond help, based solely on the inability to detect a heartbeat. Indeed, Saxe wrote, "physicians are expected and often required to attempt to resuscitate individuals who stop breathing or whose hearts stop beating."

"This is not to suggest that a plaintiff can never establish medical malpractice based on a physician's performing an unnecessary c-section to remove an already deceased fetus," the court noted. "However, to make such a case, the plaintiff must, at least, establish the existence of a factual basis for finding that the physician should have concluded that it was too late for surgical intervention."

The ruling does not affect De Jesus' claims against the hospital and other staff members.

DUELING EXPERTS

De Jesus arrived at the Bronx-Lebanon Hospital on Oct. 13, 2003, at 9 a.m., where staff eventually realized that her fetus was having heart problems inside the womb.

Mishra was called in just past 11 a.m. after a nurse had difficulty locating a fetal heartbeat. She diagnosed fetal distress and performed an emergency Caesarian section to try to rescue the infant.

De Jesus sued Mishra, hospital and staff in 2004, claiming negligence, malpractice and emotional distress. Last year, Bronx Supreme Court Justice Lucindo Suarez denied Mishra's motion for summary judgment.

The First Department reversed.

"I conclude that the opinion offered by plaintiffs' board-certified expert lacks sufficient foundation to raise an issue of fact," Saxe wrote. "Indeed, on this record, there is no merit to the claim that it was a departure to fail to halt the c-section in the face of indications that the fetus had died after the procedure was directed."

'BIZARRE' ARGUMENT

Jacqueline Mandell, the lawyer who represented Mishra, said the ruling properly dismissed a "bizarre" argument and ensured that doctors would continue to do what they could to save fetuses.

"Do you really want a bunch of obstetricians running around wondering, 'Am I going to get sued if I try to save this baby's life?'" she said.

A lawyer for De Jesus did not respond to a call for comment Tuesday.

The First Department panel included Presiding Justice Peter Tom and Justices Karla Moskowitz, Leland DeGrasse and Sheila Abdus-Salaam.

The case is De Jesus v. Mishra et al., New York State Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, No. 5809.

For De Jesus: Leslie Kelmachter and Jay Wechsler of The Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm

For Mishra: Jacqueline Mandell of Kaufman Borgeest & Ryan

(Reporting by Joseph Ax)

Follow us on Twitter: @ReutersLegal 


Comments (2)

3/14/2013 11:49:25 PM by lawyerstime1

I am agree with joelkatz the theory failed because of the specific factual circumstances, not because the theory was so remarkable. There was no way the doctor could be sure the fetus couldn’t be revived, so an emergency c-section was consistent with standard medical practice under the circumstances.

4/7/2012 8:39:10 AM by JoelKatz

Her theory is really not that remarkable. Her theory was that the doctor put her health at risk by performing an emergency c-section despite knowing that the fetus was already deceased. The theory failed because of the specific factual circumstances, not because the theory was so remarkable. There was no way the doctor could be sure the fetus couldn’t be revived, so an emergency c-section was consistent with standard medical practice under the circumstances.


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters