Example Cerebral Palsy Complaint in Pennsylvania Part 6 of 8

This is Part VI of a birth injury malpractice lawsuit.  We had to break this example complaint into 8 parts because it is so long.  This page is the first part.  
  1. Because GoodLife Health performed no patient safety supervision, no safety assessment, safety checklist, and/or oversight procedures regarding the risks to patients such as Mother Plaintiff who were suffering from pregnancy complications was performed prior to her discharge from Stoneleigh Hospital on June 18, 2017. As a result, Ms. Plaintiff was discharged from the hospital on June 18, 2017 and her unborn twins were exposed to a substantial danger of fetal death and/or permanent neurological and physical injury.
  2. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant GoodLife Health knew or should have known that they had a duty to ensure the safety of Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) by selecting and retaining only competent nurses, physicians, residents, and fellows. This duty included, but was not limited to: 1) hiring only competent nurses and physicians that are properly trained to recognize and identify fetal heart strip abnormalities in a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 2) hiring only competent nurses that are properly trained to communicate with other healthcare providers, including physicians and charge nurses, when a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff is experiencing fetal heart strip abnormalities, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 3) hiring only competent nurses and physicians that are properly trained to treat a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff experiencing fetal heart strip abnormalities, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 4) hiring and training competent residents and fellows who know how to recognize, identify, and treat a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff who is experiencing fetal heart strip abnormalities, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 5) hiring and training nurses and physicians that are competent in identifying and treating pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency in high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff who are 34 weeks pregnant with twins; 6) hiring and training physicians, fellows, and residents who are competent to identify and assess the risk associated with failing to continuously monitor and/or deliver a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff who was approximately 34 weeks pregnant with twins and suffering from pregnancy complications on June 18, 2017; 7) hiring and training physicians, fellows, and residents who are competent in realizing when to not to discharge a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff who is pregnant with twins and suffering pregnancy complications on June 18, 2017; and 8) hiring and training physicians, fellows, and residents who are competent in responding to a high-risk pregnancy patient’s need for an emergency cesarean section, such as the one required for Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017.
  3. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant GoodLife Health was deliberately, recklessly, and negligently derelict in the performance of its legal duty to select and retain only competent nurses and physicians to protect high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff who was pregnant with twins from hypoxic injury and/or fetal death. Defendant GoodLife Health was deliberately, recklessly, and negligently derelict in the performance of its legal duty by: 1) failing to hire only competent nurses and physicians that are properly trained to recognize and identify fetal heart strip abnormalities in a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 2) failing to hire only competent nurses that are properly trained to communicate with other healthcare providers, including physicians and charge nurses, when a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff is experiencing fetal heart strip abnormalities, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 3) failing to hire only competent nurses and physicians that are properly trained to treat a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff experiencing fetal heart strip abnormalities, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 4) failing to hire and train competent residents and fellows who know how to recognize, identify, and treat a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff who is experiencing fetal heart strip abnormalities, including late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 5) failing to hire and train nurses and physicians that are competent in identifying and treating pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency in high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff who are approximately 34 weeks pregnant with twins; 6) failing to hire and train physicians, fellows, and residents who are competent to identify and assess the risk associated with failing to continuously monitor and/or deliver a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff who was 34 weeks pregnant with twins and suffering from pregnancy complications on June 18, 2017; 7) failing to hire and train physicians, fellows, and residents who are competent in realizing when to not to discharge a high-risk pregnancy patient such as Mother Plaintiff who is pregnant with twins and suffering pregnancy complications on June 18, 2017; and 8) failing to hire and train physicians, fellows, and residents who are competent in responding to a high-risk pregnancy patient’s need for an emergency cesarean section, such as the one required for Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017.
  4. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant GoodLife Health had the legal duty to ensure Ms. Plaintiff and her unborn twin’s (including Baby Plaintiff) safety and well-being by formulating, adopting, and enforcing adequate rules and policies to prevent fetal death or hypoxic injury and organ damage, including permanent brain damage.
  5. At all times relevant hereto, the Defendant GoodLife Health knew or should have known that they had the legal duty to ensure Ms. Plaintiff and her unborn twin’s (including Baby Plaintiff) safety and well-being by formulating, adopting, and enforcing adequate rules and policies to ensure quality of care for high-risk twin pregnancy patients who are at high-risk of fetal death or hypoxic injury and organ damage, including permanent brain damage. This duty included, but was not limited to: 1) having adequate policies and procedures for the hiring, selection, training, and supervision of physician fellows such as Dr. A in the maternal-fetal medicine fellowship program for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of high-risk pregnancy patients, such as Mother Plaintiff; 2) having adequate policies and procedures for the proper training and supervision of physician fellows such as Dr. A regarding the safe decision-making regarding discharging high risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff from the hospital on June 18, 2017 versus delivering her twins via cesarean section and/or admitting her to the hospital with continuous fetal heart monitoring; 3) having adequate policies and procedures in place regarding the safe discharge of high-risk pregnancy patients, such as Mother Plaintiff from Stoneleigh Hospital on June 18, 2017; 4) having and enforcing safety supervision tools such as clinical practice guidelines, rules, protocols, checklists, and standing orders that were designed to provide safe and appropriate planning for pregnant women, including assessing and identifying women that are safe to be discharged from the hospital and those that should be delivered and/or admitted for continuous monitoring such as Mother Plaintiff on June 18, 2017; 5) having adequate policies and procedures in place regarding the transportation via ambulance from the maternal-fetal medicine clinic at Apple Hill to Stoneleigh hospital for pregnant patients who are suffering a medical emergency such as Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017; 6) having policies and procedures in place to resolve disputes regarding patient management and care between maternal-fetal medicine supervising physicians and fellows; 7) having policies and procedures in place regarding fetal heart monitoring, including identifying, documenting, and communicating fetal heart abnormalities, including, but not limited to decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 8) having nursing policies and procedures in place regarding going up the chain of command when nurses disagree with a physician’s proposed plan of action; 9) having policies and procedures in place regarding the training and supervision of residents discharging patients, such as Dr. F discharging Mother Plaintiff on June 18, 2017; 10) having policies and procedures for communication between nurses and physicians regarding fetal heart rate abnormalities, such as late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 11) having policies and procedures for the proper administration of medications, including betamethasone, the second dose of which was not administered to Mother Plaintiff on June 18, 2017; 12) having policies and procedures in place for timely performing emergency cesarean sections, such as the one performed on Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017; 13) having proper policies and procedures in place for timely performing emergency cesarean sections; and 14) having proper policies and procedures in place for immediately placing patients on fetal heart monitors when arriving to Stoneleigh Hospital suffering medical emergencies related to the patient’s pregnancy, such as the emergency experience by Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017.
  6. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant GoodLife Health was deliberately and recklessly derelict in the performance of their legal duty to prevent permanent hypoxic injury and brain damage to high risk twin pregnancy patients by failing to formulate, adopt, and enforce adequate rules and policies to ensure quality care for patients, such as Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff). Defendant GoodLife Health’s dereliction of duty included the following: 1) failing to have adequate policies and procedures for the hiring, selection, training, and supervision of physician fellows such as Dr. A in the maternal-fetal medicine fellowship program for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of high-risk pregnancy patients, such as Mother Plaintiff; 2) failing to have adequate policies and procedures for the proper training and supervision of physician fellows such as Dr. A regarding the safe decision-making regarding discharging high risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff from the hospital on June 18, 2017 versus delivering her twins via cesarean section and/or admitting her to the hospital with continuous fetal heart monitoring; 3) failing to have adequate policies and procedures in place regarding the safe discharge of high-risk pregnancy patients, such as Mother Plaintiff from Stoneleigh Hospital on June 18, 2017; 4) failing to have and enforce safety supervision tools such as clinical practice guidelines, rules, protocols, checklists, and standing orders that were designed to provide safe and appropriate planning for pregnant women, including assessing and identifying women that are safe to be discharged from the hospital and those that should be delivered and/or admitted for continuous monitoring such as Mother Plaintiff on June 18, 2017; 5) failing to have adequate policies and procedures in place regarding the transportation via ambulance from the maternal-fetal medicine clinic at Apple Hill to Stoneleigh hospital for pregnant patients who are suffering a medical emergency such as Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017; 6) failing to have policies and procedures in place to resolve disputes regarding patient management and care between maternal-fetal medicine supervising physicians and fellows; 7) failing to have policies and procedures in place regarding fetal heart monitoring, including identifying, documenting, and communicating fetal heart abnormalities, including, but not limited to decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 8) failing to have nursing policies and procedures in place regarding going up the chain of command when nurses disagree with a physician’s proposed plan of action; 9) failing to have policies and procedures in place regarding the training and supervision of residents discharging patients, such as Dr. F discharging Mother Plaintiff on June 18, 2017; 10) failing to have policies and procedures for communication between nurses and physicians regarding fetal heart rate abnormalities, such as late decelerations and periods of non-reactivity; 11) failing to have policies and procedures for the proper administration of medications, including betamethasone, the second dose of which was not administered to Mother Plaintiff on June 18, 2017; 12) failing to have policies and procedures in place for timely performing emergency cesarean sections, such as the one performed on Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017; 13) failing to have proper policies and procedures in place for timely performing emergency cesarean sections; and 14) failing to have proper policies and procedures in place for immediately placing patients on fetal heart monitors when arriving to Stoneleigh Hospital suffering medical emergencies related to the patient’s pregnancy, such as the emergency experience by Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017.
  7. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant GoodLife Health knew or should have known that it had the legal duty to ensure the safety and wellbeing of their patients at Stoneleigh Hospital with patient safety supervision of physicians and other healthcare providers who were responsible for diagnosing, monitoring, and treating high-risk twin pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff at Stoneleigh Hospital. This duty included, but was not limited to: 1) making certain that the Defendants Dr. A and Dr. S’s training and learning curve for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of high risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff was long enough to provide safe decision making regarding the decision to discharge her from the hospital on June 18, 2017, versus delivering her twins via cesarean section and/or admitting her to the hospital with continuous fetal heart monitoring; 2) implementing the duty of patient safety supervision with enforced policies and rules to assess the risk of each patients’ care or processes that presented any risk of harm to the patient; 3) monitoring all high-risk twin pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff for pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency; 4) monitoring the risk of fetal hypoxia and permanent neurological injury and organ damage for all high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff who are suffering from pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency; 5) monitoring and training all residents and fellows in their assessments and treatments of all high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff who are suffering from pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency; 6) monitoring all physicians (including residents and fellows) in their proposed discharged of all high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff who are suffering from pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency; 7) promulgating and enforcing rules and policies that high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff should not be discharged from the hospital when they are approximately 34 weeks pregnant and at high risk for the fetuses’ suffering fetal hypoxia and permanent neurological injury and organ damage; 8) properly overseeing nurses and physicians to ensure that high-risk pregnancy patients who are suffering a medical emergency such as Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017 are immediately taken to the operating room for an emergency cesarean section; 9) monitoring and overseeing the healthcare providers caring for Ms. Plaintiff to ensure that she was not discharged from Stoneleigh Hospital on June 18, 2017, when the hospital knew or should have known that by discharging her the hospital directly exposed her and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) to a substantial risk of severe harm, including fetal hypoxia, fetal neurological damage, and fetal organ failure.
  8. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant GoodLife Health was deliberately, recklessly, and negligently derelict in the performance of its legal duty to oversee and provide patient safety supervision of all persons who practice medicine within their walls as to patient care for Ms. Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff). Defendant was negligent in performing this duty as follows: 1) failing to make certain that the Defendants Dr. A and Dr. S’s training and learning curve for the assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of high risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff was long enough to provide safe decision making regarding the decision to discharge her from the hospital on June 18, 2017, versus delivering her twins via cesarean section and/or admitting her to the hospital with continuous fetal heart monitoring; 2) failing to implement the duty of patient safety supervision with enforced policies and rules to assess the risk of each patients’ care or processes that presented any risk of harm to the patient; 3) failing to monitor all high-risk twin pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff for pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency; 4) failing to monitor the risk of fetal hypoxia and permanent neurological injury and organ damage for all high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff who are suffering from pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency; 5) failing to monitor all residents and fellows in their assessments and treatments of all high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff who are suffering from pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency; 6) failing to monitor all physicians (including residents and fellows) in their proposed discharged of all high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff who are suffering from pregnancy complications such as IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency; 7) failing to promulgate and enforce rules and policies that high-risk pregnancy patients such as Mother Plaintiff should not be discharged from the hospital when they are approximately 34 weeks pregnant and at high risk for the fetuses’ suffering fetal hypoxia and permanent neurological injury and organ damage; 8) failing to properly oversee nurses and physician to ensure that high-risk pregnancy patients who are suffering a medical emergency such as Mother Plaintiff on June 20, 2017 are immediately taken to the operating room for an emergency cesarean section; 9) failing to monitor and oversee the healthcare providers caring for Ms. Plaintiff to ensure that she was not discharged from Stoneleigh Hospital on June 18, 2017, when the hospital knew or should have known that by discharging her the hospital directly exposed her and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) to a substantial risk of severe harm, including fetal hypoxia, fetal neurological damage, and fetal organ failure.
  9. Defendant GoodLife Health had no policy, rule, check, or standing order to make certain that the Plaintiff Mother Rese was being properly assessed, evaluated, diagnosed, and treated for her high-risk pregnancy from June 16, 2017 until June 18, 2017.
  10. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant GoodLife Health permitted and delegated the responsibility of supervision to Defendant Dr. A who was permitted to act on his own in planning and performing the task of determining whether Mother Plaintiff should be discharged from the hospital on June 18, 2017 rather than delivered via cesarean section and/or admitted to the Stoneleigh Hospital for continuous monitoring.
  11. Alternatively, Defendant GoodLife Health permitted and delegated the responsibility of supervision to Defendant Dr. S who was permitted to act on his own in planning and performing the task of determining whether Mother Plaintiff should be discharged from the hospital on June 18, 2017 rather than delivered via cesarean section and/or admitted to the Stoneleigh Hospital for continuous monitoring.
  12. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant GoodLife Health knew or should have known that Dr. A and Dr. S did not have adequate learning experience necessary to properly assess, evaluate, diagnose, and treat Mother Plaintiff for her high-risk pregnancy on June 18, 2017, including, but not limited to, deciding whether to discharge her from Stoneleigh Hospital versus delivering her via cesarean section and/or admitting her to the hospital for continuous monitoring.
  13. As a direct and proximate result of GoodLife Health’s negligence, Baby Plaintiff suffered a severe and permanent physical injury, including but not limited to, oxygen deprivation, severe hypoxia, severe metabolic acidosis, permanent brain injury, respiratory distress, neurological impairment, gastrointestinal impairment, and multi-system organ failure.
  14. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of GoodLife Health’s negligence, Baby Plaintiff suffered mental and physical pain and suffering, inconvenience, humiliation, embarrassment, loss of life’s enjoyment and pleasures, and the damages that discovery will show are appropriate under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
  15. Baby Plaintiff’ medical expenses to date total approximately $100,089.25. Baby Plaintiff has incurred and will incur past medical expenses; past pain and suffering; future costs and medical expenses; future lost wages; future loss of earning capacity; and future pain, suffering, and inconvenience.
  16. As the parents and next friend of Baby Plaintiff, a minor, Mother Plaintiff and Father Plaintiff are legally responsible for paying these past and future medical expenses.
  17. Therefore, as the direct and proximate result of these breaches of the applicable standard of medical care, Mother Plaintiff and Father Plaintiff incurred past medical expenses on behalf of Baby Plaintiff. They will incur future medical expenses on behalf of Baby Plaintiff; future cost and expenses for the care of Baby Plaintiff; and the loss of services, labor, assistance, etc. from their child, Baby Plaintiff.
  18. All of the allegations of negligence and wrongful conduct set forth herein increased the risk of harm to Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (in particular Baby Plaintiff).
  19. The harm suffered by Mother Plaintiff and in particular Baby Plaintiff from discharging Mother Plaintiff from the hospital rather than keeping her in the hospital and/or delivering her via cesarean section was of a kind that ordinarily does not occur in the absence of negligence.
  20. The damages of the Plaintiff Baby Plaintiff exceed the amount requiring mandatory arbitration in Stoneleigh County.
    WHEREFORE: The Plaintiffs, Mother Plaintiff and Father Plaintiff, individually, and as parents and natural guardians of Baby Plaintiff, a minor, claim monetary damages on her behalf against GoodLife Health with interests and costs of suit in an amount in excess of the arbitration limits
COUNT XV: CORPORATE NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL MALPRACTICE

Mother Plaintiff and Father Plaintiff, Individually, as Parents and
Natural Guardians of Baby Plaintiff, a Minor,
v.
Stoneleigh Hospital

  1. Plaintiff incorporates paragraphs 1-429 above herein by reference and in additional avers:
  2. GoodLife Health is a non-profit corporation providing healthcare to the public and incorporated under the laws of Pennsylvania. GoodLife owns a vast and integrated healthcare system that includes a multitude of medical groups and healthcare facilities, including, but not limited to GoodLife Medical Group, t/d/b/a GoodLife Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Stoneleigh Hospital.
  3. As part of an integrative and collaborative network of providers operating under the umbrella of GoodLife Health, GoodLife Medical Group, t/d/b/a GoodLife Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Stoneleigh Hospital collaborate with each other in the following ways: a) sharing patients; b) sharing medical records through the same computer database; c) having equal access to the medical records, including the ability to make changes to the medical records; d) sharing pathways of communication, including the ability to immediately call other facilities; e) sharing policies, protocols, and procedures for nurses and physicians; f) sharing residents and fellows; g) sharing joint responsibility for the retaining, training, and supervision of residents and fellows; h) sharing joint responsibility for patients being seen at multiple GoodLife locations; and i) having the ability to direct and control healthcare providers at other GoodLife locations (for instance, maternal fetal medicine fellows having the ability to direct and control residents and nurses working at Stoneleigh Hospital).
  4. As part of an integrative and collaborative network of providers operating under the umbrella of GoodLife Health, GoodLife Medical Group, t/d/b/a GoodLife Maternal-Fetal Medicine and Stoneleigh Hospital share policies, procedures, and a common set of goals to ensure the safety of their shared patients.
  5. More specific to this case, GoodLife Health, GoodLife Medical Group, t/d/b/a GoodLife Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and Stoneleigh Hospital jointly advertise and offer a physician fellowship in maternal-fetal medicine. The program spans 3 years and offers fellows an opportunity to practice in an office setting at various GoodLife Medical Group, t/d/b/a GoodLife Maternal-Fetal Medicine locations as well as seeing patients who have been admitted to Stoneleigh Hospital. The training program is collaborative and designed to train fellows in maternal-fetal medicine to assess, diagnose, and treat patients in various clinic settings, including office and hospital settings. As a result, GoodLife Health, GoodLife Medical Group, t/d/b/a GoodLife Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and Stoneleigh Hospital share responsibility for their fellows and collectively hire, train, educate, reprimand, and supervise them in their assessment, diagnosis, and treatment of patients.
  6. In this case, Dr. A was a fellow with GoodLife Health, GoodLife Medical Group, t/d/b/a GoodLife Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and Stoneleigh Hospital when he saw and evaluated Mother Plaintiff at Stoneleigh Hospital from June 16, 2017 until June 18, 2017.
  7. Upon information and belief, Defendant GoodLife Health is a parent company of a health system that operated Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital.
  8. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital was a medical facility subject to the corporate liability law that was holding itself out as having advanced and safe labor and delivery units with high quality nurses and physicians skilled at diagnosing and treating high-risk pregnancy patients, including Mother Plaintiff’s pregnancy when she was admitted to Stoneleigh Hospital on June 16, 2017 until June 18, 2017, and on June 20, 2017 for that purpose.
  9. Under the law of Pennsylvania, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital had a duty to comply with the objective legal standard of care for hospitals which required Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital and/or GoodLife Health to ensure the safety and well-being of all patients being treating in its facilities including Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff).
  10. At all times relevant hereto, Stoneleigh Hospital had a duty and obligation under the law to have and enforce comprehensive policies and standards for ensure the safety of patients, employees, and visitors and for the protection from malpractice and negligence. 28 P.A. Code § 101.31(10)(xv).
  11. Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital had a non-delegable duty imposed by the common law of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to ensure the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) while they were a patient at its facility Stoneleigh Hospital. This non-delegable duty included:
    1. A duty to use reasonable care in the maintenance of safe and adequate facilities and equipment;
    2. To select and retain only competent physicians;
    3. To oversee all persons who practice medicine within its walls as to patient care;
    4. To formulate, adopt, and enforce rules and policies to ensure quality care for patients.
  12. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known of the published notice that it was required to have and enforce comprehensive policies and standards for ensuring the safety of patients for protection from malpractice and negligence (28 Pa. Code §101.31(10)(xv)) and to make certain through reasonable compliance with the corporate duties established by law to ensure the safety and well-being of Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff).
  13. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital had published notice that Defendants were “required to make every effort to reduce and eliminate medical errors by identifying problems and implementing solutions to promote patient safety.” MCARE Act (Act of March 20, 2002 PL 154 No. 113 §102(5), 40 P.S. §1303.102(5).
  14. In ensuring the safety and welfare of Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) and removing needless dangers to them, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital was required to be aware of the known and needless dangers involved in discharging from the hospital high-risk pregnancy patients, such as Mother Plaintiff who was approximately 34 weeks pregnant with twins on June 18, 2017 and suffering IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency.
  15. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that the level of danger to Plaintiff Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) was established by the level of care that was needed to provide safe care to avoid risks and complications including hypoxic injury and permanent brain damage to Baby Plaintiff. The level of danger to Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) was extraordinarily given Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins’ (including Baby Plaintiff) pregnancy complications, including, but not limited to, IUGR, gestational hypertension, and utero-placental insufficiency from June 16, 2017 until June 20, 2017. The risks associated with these complications specifically included hypoxic injury to both twins and the risk of permanent brain damage. Given the high level of risk, Mother Plaintiff and her unborn twins (including Baby Plaintiff) required a high level of safety training, experience, and preparedness to avoid.
  16. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that Ms. Plaintiff was pregnant with monochorionic diamniotic twins and at high risk for pregnancy complications when she was sent to the hospital on June 16, 2017.
  17. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that Ms. Plaintiff was suffering from pregnancy complications such as gestation hypertension, IUGR, and utero-placental insufficiency while she was admitted to Stoneleigh Hospital from June 16, 2017 until June 18, 2017.
  18. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital knew or should have known that, Ms. Plaintiff was experiencing signs and symptoms of utero-placental insufficiency, including, but not limited to, headaches, nausea, vomiting, hypertension, and IUGR while she was admitted to Stoneleigh Hospital from June 16, 2017 until June 18, 2017.

Contact Us For a Free Consultation

1Free Consultation

2Available to talk NOW - 24/7

3No fees unless you WIN

Miller & Zois clients have received over $100 Million in verdicts and settlements. Let us fight for you!

Client Reviews

★★★★★
They quite literally worked as hard as if not harder than the doctors to save our lives. Terry Waldron
★★★★★
Ron helped me find a clear path that ended with my foot healing and a settlement that was much more than I hope for. Aaron Johnson
★★★★★
Hopefully I won't need it again but if I do, I have definitely found my lawyer for life and I would definitely recommend this office to anyone! Bridget Stevens
★★★★★
The last case I referred to them settled for $1.2 million. John Selinger
★★★★★
I am so grateful that I was lucky to pick Miller & Zois. Maggie Lauer
★★★★★
The entire team from the intake Samantha to the lawyer himself (Ron Miller) has been really approachable. Suzette Allen
★★★★★
The case settled and I got a lot more money than I expected. Ron even fought to reduce how much I owed in medical bills so I could get an even larger settlement. Nchedo Idahosa

Contact Us

Free Consultation (800) 553-8082 Call 24/7