$8 Million Birth Injury Verdict Affirmed On Appeal: In its opinion filed on May 11, 2023, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed a medical malpractice birth injury jury’s verdict in the amount of $8,030,003 against Catholic Health Initiatives Colorado d/b/a Centura Health Penrose St. Francis Health Services (Penrose). The jury had determined that the defendant physician and the defendant nurse were not negligent. The defendant hospital appealed.
Aron Roudybush was born via vaginal delivery at Penrose. During his birth, the obstetrician used a vacuum device to facilitate delivery. The vacuum device attached to Aron’s head, applying suction and traction, and allowed the obstetrician to pull Aron out while his mother pushed.
During the delivery, Aron suffered neurological injuries. Aron’s parents, on behalf of Aron, filed suit against Penrose; the obstetrician, Dr. Javine Horani; and the labor and delivery nurse, Janny Van Dusseldorp, R.N. The Roudybushes alleged that Penrose, Dr. Horani, and Nurse Van Dusseldorp were negligent in their care during Aron’s birth, and that their negligence caused Aron’s injuries.
During trial, the jury heard evidence regarding the duty of care owed to patients by hospitals, doctors, and nurses. This evidence included expert testimony on a hospital’s duty to “teach the nurses about the use of the vacuum” and that Penrose didn’t “educate the nurses appropriately on an operative vaginal delivery.”
Colorado Court Of Appeals Opinion
The Colorado Court of Appeals stated: “This case doesn’t turn on whether Penrose had a legal duty to have a policy; instead, it turns on whether Penrose owed Aron a legal duty and what the scope of that duty was … Because our supreme court has recognized that the hospital-patient relationship imposes a duty on hospitals, we conclude that Penrose did owe a duty to Aron and his mother while they were patients.”
“In this case, the risk of failing to train and support the labor and delivery nursing staff is significant. It’s clear from the record that knowledge of the differing forms of vacuums, the length of time the vacuum is applied, and the number of pulls, as well as clear and specific medical chart documentation of the entire procedure, are essential when assisting a patient with a vaginal birth. The evidence supports a reasonable inference that the misuse or overuse of a vacuum carries a significant risk of injury to the baby. Therefore, this factor weighs in favor of a duty to adequately train, educate, and prepare the labor and delivery nursing staff on their independent role in the vacuum delivery process.”
“Neither party disputes that there is risk involved in a vacuum-assisted vaginal delivery. And there was sufficient evidence presented at trial regarding the known risks of using a vacuum to assist in a vaginal delivery, as well as the risks of misuse … Because of the foreseeability of the risks involved, this factor weighs in favor of finding that Penrose had a duty to adequately train, educate, and prepare the labor and delivery nursing staff on their independent role in the vacuum delivery process.”
“Based on the evidence that it is routine for hospitals to provide continuing education opportunities, it follows that it would not impose a substantial burden on the hospital to provide a training on the nursing staff’s independent role in the vacuum delivery process … Based on the already existing structure of continuing education classes that are available through hospitals, and because training the nursing staff on a specific procedure doesn’t override or change the physician’s authority in the delivery room, the consequences of this burden are minimal.”
“Whether Penrose had a duty to have a policy on the maximum number of vacuum pulls allowed in a vacuum-assisted
delivery isn’t before us. The issue before us is whether Penrose had a duty to train, educate, and prepare its nonphysician labor and delivery staff on their role in the vacuum delivery process, and, based on the HealthONE factors, it did owe this duty to Aron.”
“In this case, the jury’s finding that Penrose was negligent could be based on, as the Roudybushes urge, evidence that Penrose failed to fulfill its duty to train and educate the labor and delivery nursing staff … The evidence supports a reasonable conclusion that because of a lack of education, Nurse Van Dusseldorp lacked adequate training on the signs of fetal distress in a vacuum-assisted delivery, the difference between vacuum options, the risks of vacuum-assisted delivery, and the importance of documenting critical steps in the delivery process. And because Nurse Van Dusseldorp wasn’t adequately trained or educated, she was unaware of and unable to fulfill her role in the labor and delivery process. Therefore, contrary to Penrose’s contention, competent evidence — including expert testimony — supports the jury’s finding that Penrose’s negligence proximately caused Aron’s injuries.”
Roudybush v Catholic Health, 22CA0663.
If you or your child may have been injured during pregnancy, labor, or delivery as a result of medical malpractice in Colorado or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Colorado medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your birth injury medical malpractice claim for you and represent you and your child one in a birth injury medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find birth injury medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.