Defense Verdict In Connecticut

On June 7, 2013, HPM&B received a defense verdict in Middletown Superior Court on behalf of an obstetrician/gynecologist.  The case arose out of a twin pregnancy which ended in a premature delivery of the babies at 24 weeks gestation.  One of the twins died shortly after birth.  The other twin survived, but the plaintiff claimed that the child sustained multiple permanent injuries, including a brain damage due to an intraventricular hemorrhage.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant obstetrician/gynecologist failed to provide appropriate prenatal care to monitor for and prevent cervical incompetence from causing the premature birth.  The plaintiff alleged that the defendant failed to follow her with serial ultrasounds or alternatively failed to perform a cerclage to avoid cervical incompetence.  The plaintiff claimed that she had an increased risk of cervical incompetence due to a LEEP procedure that she had undergone prior to the subject twin pregnancy.

The case was defended based on the exemplary care that was provided in the prenatal period which met the standard of care.  In particular, there were frequent prenatal appointments and each problem that the plaintiff encountered during her pregnancy was immediately evaluated and addressed by the defendant.  The defendant called both an expert on the standard of care.  As to standard of care, the defense expert testified that neither serial ultrasounds nor cerclage were required where the patient had a prior LEEP procedure.  The defendant also called a treating obstetrician/gynecologist and a treating obstetrical nurse both of whom saw the patient in the days prior to the start of her pre-term labor and found through their separate cervical examinations that the patient did not have symptoms consistent with an incompetent cervix.

In addition, the defendant challenged the damage claims asserted by the plaintiff as to the severity of the physical problems suffered by the surviving twin.  The plaintiff portrayed the injuries as being highly debilitating; however the defendant introduced expert testimony refuting those claims as well as testimony from the mother, including videos she had taken which showed the child to be physically active and cognitively intact.

After just over an hour of deliberating, the jury returned a defense verdict.  Dave Robertson represented defendant at trial.