Mercy Medical Center in Baltimore City thinks so. Mercy is an institution in Baltimore, having been around since just after the Civil War. In 2011, Mercy delivered 2,866 babies. Until now, they have worked with the midwife group of Kathleen Slone CNM & Associates, which provided midwife services in the hospital. A midwife, in case you don’t know, is a person who is trained to assist in deliveries who is not a doctor. They often provide other services in and around the pregnancy period, but it is at this point considered by many to be an alternative form of medical care. Many women seek midwives so that they can have more control over the labor and delivery process, and so that they can have a more natural process. Midwives may deliver babies at home, in a birth center, or at a hospital.
Mercy says that they are cutting ties with the group (and not seeking other midwife arrangements) because of the high costs of medical malpractice litigation. Reportedly, two recent Maryland cases, involving midwives not involved in Mercy, have caused insurance premiums to go up. This ignores the fact that one of those verdicts was recently overturned, and is on appeal. Of course, obstetrics in general is risky, and has high insurance premiums, but the hospital isn’t cutting out its entire obstetrics department. The relationship is expected to formally end by February of 2014.
The Slone group delivered 236 babies in 2012–each one of them at Mercy. Certainly, delivery of babies by midwives at a hospital is among the safest way to go–the midwives have easy access to obstetricians and important technological advances, should they choose and need to use them. They state that they only perform low-risk deliveries. A quick check of the Maryland Judiciary website indicates that none of the Slone group’s midwives have been sued for malpractice in Maryland courts, and they are probably good midwives. One of the large risks in midwife practice is the acceptance of expectant mothers who have had a prior cesarean section–these VBAC (Vaginal Birth After Cesarean) patients are often considered high risk because of the chance that the old scar will rupture, placental abruption, and other potential complications.
Like anything else medically-related, there are risks that patients and health care providers must consider. The key in birth injury lawsuits is that the health care provider must act in accordance with the standard of care, which is determined at trial by experts of the same specialty–often obstetricians and other midwives. If a child is in danger, the parents must be provided with enough information to make a good decision about the next course of action. Certainly, medical providers must use good judgment in deciding whether they are qualified to accept patients from the beginning of a relationship.
You can expect that this will prompt outcries about the high costs of medical malpractice–but those outcries will be based on evil lawyers and greedy patients and frivolous lawsuits. The reality, though, is that insurance premiums for medical malpractice increase because the insurance companies want to make more money. Maryland is not typically a great place for lawyers to even file medical malpractice lawsuits–we have a strict cap on non-economic damages, and these cases are difficult to win even under the best of circumstances.
The real question is this: if you or a loved one is hurt by a negligent doctor–would you give up a right to file a lawsuit in order that the doctor would have lower insurance premiums?
There is a new type of medical malpractice case that has started to hit the courts. Due to the recent upswing in robotic-assisted surgery, we are seeing more and more lawsuits over serious injuries caused by da Vinci robotic surgeries. The da Vinci is a futuristic piece of technology that some hospitals are pushing on their doctors. The manufacturer, Intuitive Surgical, touts the device as a surgical tool for smaller incisions and quicker recovery times. Unfortunately, there are problems.
The first problem is the technology itself. Evidence collected so far indicates that there may be problems with the design or manufacture of the robot. During some surgeries, patients have been seriously burned by electrical current that jumped from the machine to the patient. In one case, a young woman who was scheduled for what should have been a routine hysterectomy had burns to her intestines and an artery, and she died within two weeks of the surgery. Other cases have seen broken surgical blades.
The second problem is training–this is a sophisticated piece of equipment. To doctors using it, it may feel like a video game, but the equipment and software are complex. This is not like learning to pass eight levels of Super Mario Bros. Hospitals are anxious for their doctors to use the equipment so that they can advertise their cutting-edge technological expertise. The manufacturer provides a small degree of training, but in light of the number of mistakes made by doctors during surgery, that training is clearly insufficient.
The da Vinci is used for any number of surgeries–most often hysterectomies, bladder surgeries and throat surgeries. Though cases are being filed, these are untested waters. Lawyers and clients must decide whether to bring a product defect case against the manufacturer (for failure to warn, design defect, or manufacturing defect), or a medical malpractice case against the surgeon or hospital, or both. Expert testimony in each type of case (product liability and medical malpractice) is extensive. To do both at the same will require experts in the underlying surgery, and perhaps others like computer programmers,software engineers and mechanical engineers.
It’s clear to everyone that pressure ulcers, also known as bed sores, are painful, dangerous and can even be deadly. These are the most common type of nursing home and assisted living negligence case. Frequently, patients who are immobile (whether because of physical or mental injuries), are allowed to sit or stay in one position for too long. If the body doesn’t move regularly, blood doesn’t flow properly, and injuries develop to the skin surface. Left untreated, those minor injuries grow and deepen, sometimes becoming infected down to the bone and causing necrotic tissue.
It is likely impossible to completely prevent bedsores. The negligence in nursing home cases is typically focused on failure to identify and treat pressure ulcers before they get to a dangerous point. Without proper treatment, patients must be hospitalized and undergo painful cleaning and tissue removal. In the worst cases, patients die because of infection.
The Journal of the American Geriatrics Society reports in its September 2012 issue (Hospital-Acquired Pressure Ulcers: Results from the National Medicare Patient Safety Monitoring System Study) that they have found a correlation between bedsores and patient mortality. Evaluating 51,000 Medicare patients from 2006 and 2007, the authors discovered that hospital patients who develop bedsores are more likely to die, to be readmitted to the hospital within 30 days, and to have longer hospital stays. The key, of course, is prevention and early treatment. Evaluating patients who had bedsores, they found that the most common locations are the tailbone or sacrum, followed by the hip, buttocks and heels.
If you or a loved one has developed pressure ulcers in a hospital stay or at a nursing home, contact our nursing home abuse lawyers at 443.850.4426, or send an online confidential request for information. We can order your medical records, have them reviewed by an expert, and determine whether you have a nursing home lawsuit.
There have been two recent medical malpractice verdicts in Maryland—the first, in Baltimore City, was a birth injury malpractice against Johns Hopkins Hospital that yielded a jury verdict of $55 million. The second was earlier this week, where a Baltimore City jury found that a child born with cerebral palsy at Harbor Hospital was deserving of $21 million.
The verdicts themselves are somewhat misleading. Like the news reporting that a lawyer has filed a ten million dollar case, the actual number is almost meaningless. High figures are often used by lawyers to ensure that any actual verdict comes in below that number. If the judge or jury returns a verdict in excess of what the plaintiff asked for, there could be complications to collecting the entire amount.
For medical malpractice and other personal injury verdicts, the numbers are important only to enhance the “street cred” of the lawyers. The victims will never recover such high amounts, because Maryland is one of the states that have a cap on non-economic damages. This means that the family is entitled to money for clear-cut damages, like past and future medical bills, lost wages, and adaptive equipment. But money for pain, suffering, mental anguish, humiliation, inconvenience, disfigurement and other “fuzzy” damages is strictly limited. The jury doesn’t know it, but after the verdict the judge will cut whatever number they give. For the $55 million Johns Hopkins medical malpractice case, the final number is closer to $29.6 million. That is because the jury believed that the child’s injury came to a cost of $26 million in non-economic damages, but Maryland law cuts that figure to $665,000 (based on the date of the malpractice).
The usual responses to medical malpractice verdicts include:
But, according to a recent Baltimore Sun article, even the American Medical Association and the American Tort Reform Association acknowledge that there is no data to show that doctors leave the practice. Instead, they cite “anecdotal evidence.”
Research even shows that medical malpractice payments tend to go down, and that such payments represent only a fraction of the cost of the health care system (See Public Citizen).
The response from the medical community should be preventative—they should pledge that these injuries will not happen; that they will work harder to train their doctors and nurses; and that they will institute safeguards to prevent families from suffering. Birth injuries are terrible and costly. If doctors and their insurance companies don’t pay for them, then taxpayers will. Children with birth injuries will often require medical assistance, and will often be on social security.
In late June, a medical malpractice trial against Johns Hopkins was decided by a jury to the tune of $55 million dollars. Because of Maryland law limiting what are called “non-economic damages” (pain, suffering, mental anguish, inconvenience, disfigurement, incapacity, etc…), that verdict will be cut by more than half, to $29.6 million.
That was a case about a birth injury. The allegations, simply stated, were that Johns Hopkins was negligent in treating a woman who presented in labor. Her child was not timely delivered, and should have been delivered earlier by emergency cesarean section. Because of the delay, the child was deprived of oxygen, and suffered brain damage. Because of that delay, the child now has irreversible brain injury and will suffer developmental delays.
Part of the backstory behind Hopkins’ failures was the failure of a midwife named Evelyn Muhlhan. Hopkins tried to blame Ms. Muhlhan for the babies injuries, arguing that Muhlhan was negligent when the mother tried the home birth option, well before Muhlhan handed them off to an ambulance to go to Hopkins. Indeed, the evidence seems clear that Muhlhan was negligent. This is a laundry list of the things she did wrong:
That evidence was excluded by the judge, because any negligence by the midwife was irrelevant to deciding whether Hopkins was negligent. The jury may have had evidence to determine whether the baby was injured before arriving at the hospital, but the jury need not decide the cause of any supposed prior injury. And here, after hearing the evidence, the jury decided that the injury was caused by Hopkins, in the last few minutes before delivery.
Muhlhan, like midwifery generally, is one of those polarizing forces. You love her or you hate her. Muhlhan has rabid fans—because of the Hopkins incident, in conjunction with other deviations from the standard of care (including one death during a birth, and three other situations), a website has been created to help her contest the suspension of her certified nurse midwife license and her registered nurse license. By some accounts (here and here), Ms. Muhlhan has left a path of destruction in her years as a midwife.
Expectant parents who want a midwife-led or homebirth should have it, if it is safe. Those parents depend on their doctors and midwives to let them know if it can be done safely. If the birth is high risk, or if there are problems, then the birth should be done in a hospital with access to emergency equipment. The birth process is important, but the most important thing is the health of the baby.
If your baby was injured during a hospital or midwife delivery, contact our birth injury lawyers at 443.850.4426, or online for a no-charge consultation. We can help you find out whether your doctors or midwives acted appropriately, or whether they caused your child’s injury. For more information, see our Birth Injury Malpractice page.