Example Cerebral Palsy Complaint in Pennsylvania Part 8 of 8

  1. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital 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.
  2. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital 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.
  3. Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital 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.
  4. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital 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.
  5. Alternatively, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital 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.
  6. At all times relevant hereto, Defendant Stoneleigh Hospital 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.
  7. As a direct and proximate result of Stoneleigh Hospital’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.
  8. As a direct and proximate result of the negligence of Stoneleigh Hospital’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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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).
  13. 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.
  14. 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 Stoneleigh Hospital with interests and costs of suit in an amount in excess of the arbitration limits.

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