The Alleged Facts
Connecticut operates the University of Connecticut Health Center/John Dempsey Hospital in Farmington, which provides prenatal care and labor and delivery services through the UConn Health Women’s Center (UConn). Between
September 1, 2019, and March 25, 2020, UConn undertook the care and treatment of Escobar-Santana for pregnancy, labor, and delivery.
During a March 3, 2020 visit to a walk-in clinic, Escobar-Santana was diagnosed with elevated blood pressure, influenza, and proteinuria (the presence of abnormally high levels of protein in the urine). On March 17, during a routine prenatal visit, sonography revealed that the estimated fetal weight was above the ninetieth percentile and the abdominal circumference was above the ninety-fifth percentile. On March 23, Escobar-Santana complained of bilateral leg swelling and continued elevated blood pressure. She was admitted at that time for an induction of labor.
On March 25, 2020, following two days of treatment with oxytocin but relatively minimal progress in her labor, Escobar-Santana developed a fever. By 7:20 p.m., her temperature had risen to 101.8 degrees Fahrenheit. At 8:30 p.m., she began pushing.
At 9:04 p.m., Kristyn Esteves, an obstetrical resident at UConn, conducted a manual exam and, on the basis of palpation, concluded that the fetus could have been in a right occiput transverse position that would make safe vaginal delivery improbable. Two hours later, at approximately 11 p.m., David Park, a board-certified obstetrician at UConn, performed a fetal sonograph and determined that the fetus was, in fact, malpositioned in a occiput posterior presentation. He counseled Escobar-Santana regarding various possible delivery options, including manually rotating the fetus’ head so as to proceed with vaginal delivery. She agreed to try manual rotation, but the pain was intolerable. Accordingly, due to maternal exhaustion, the delivery plan was changed to cesarean section (C-section) for failure to progress. Because of the length of labor and the fetal positioning, however, the fetus’ head had become impacted in the maternal pelvis.
During the delivery by C-section, which commenced at 11:51 p.m., at least one health care provider placed a hand into Escobar-Santana’s vagina and applied force to push up on the fetal head. Whereas a C-section can normally be accomplished in less than one minute, in this case, twenty-four minutes were required to extract the baby. Emmett suffered serious and permanent injuries in the process.
The plaintiffs filed their Connecticut medical malpractice lawsuit, alleging injuries to Emmett in count one and injuries to Escobar-Santana in count two. The state filed a motion to dismiss count two of the complaint, contending that the count states a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress or bystander liability, rather than medical malpractice, and, therefore, does not fall within the statutory waiver of the state’s sovereign immunity in § 4-160 (f). The trial court denied the motion, concluding that, when the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiffs, and every reasonable presumption is made in favor of jurisdiction, count two reasonably can be understood to sound in medical malpractice. The state subsequently filed a motion to reargue and to reconsider, which the trial court granted, but, after reargument and reconsideration, the court upheld its prior decision. The state then appealed.
In its August 18, 2023 Opinion, the Connecticut Supreme Court stated: “General Statutes § 4-160 (f)1 waives the
state’s sovereign immunity with respect to qualified medical malpractice actions and allows such actions to proceed against the state without the need for prior authorization from the Claims Commissioner. The statute also expressly provides that ‘‘[a]ny such action shall be limited to medical malpractice claims only . . . .’’ General Statutes § 4-160 (f). The primary question presented by this interlocutory appeal is whether the statutory phrase ‘‘medical malpractice claims’’ is broad enough to encompass a mother’s allegation that she suffered emotional distress damages from physical injuries to her child that were proximately caused by the negligence of health care professionals during the birthing process. We hold that claims alleging such damages can qualify as medical malpractice claims for purposes of § 4-160 (f).”
“Accordingly, we agree with the majority position and hold, under our common-law authority, that a birthing mother may recover for emotional distress arising from her traumatic experiences during and immediately following the birthing process, up to and including her realization of her child’s injuries, when those injuries are proximately caused by the defendant’s medical malpractice while the child was in utero. Insofar as § 4-160 (f) incorporates Connecticut’s common law of tort, we interpret the term ‘‘medical malpractice claims’’ in that light.”
Source Escobar-Santana v. State of Connecticut, SC 20772.
If you or your newborn suffered serious harm or death as a result of medical negligence during labor, delivery, or birth in Connecticut or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a Connecticut medical malpractice attorney, or a medical malpractice attorney in your state, who may investigate your birth injury medical malpractice claim for you and represent you and your child in a birth injury case, if appropriate.
Click here to visit our website or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice lawyers in your U.S. state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.