Plaintiff became pregnant in late 2018 and desired to give birth in her home. She put herself in the care of Dr. Hayes, who specialized in home deliveries. Dr. Hayes assured Plaintiff “he would be able to immediately transfer [her] to a physician specializing in high-risk pregnancies or to the hospital if medical risks arose[.]”
Plaintiff’s due date was July 7, 2019, based on a gestation period of 40 weeks. However, when Plaintiff did not naturally go into labor by her due date, Dr. Hayes told her to be patient. Over the next few weeks, Plaintiff and her husband raised concerns with Dr. Hayes about the prolonged pregnancy, but Dr. Hayes assured them there was nothing to worry about.
The risk of harm or death to the baby and harm to the mother rises precipitously after 42 weeks of gestation. At no time, however, did Dr. Hayes explain the risks to Plaintiff of carrying a baby well past the due date.
At the end of July, after Plaintiff reached 43 weeks, she was experiencing fever and intense pain, was not thinking clearly, and was having urinary incontinence. She asked Dr. Hayes if she should go to the hospital. Dr. Hayes, though, told Plaintiff he was not concerned and he would make sure she gave birth at home.
On August 1, when Plaintiff’s gestation period reached 43 weeks and 4 days and her condition was worsening, Dr. Hayes spent ten hours at Plaintiff’s home. Plaintiff told Dr. Hayes she thought she should go to the hospital, as she was feeling ill and experiencing urinary incontinence and confusion. But he counseled her not to go and that inducing labor would not be the correct approach. He checked the baby’s heartbeat, which was steady. He told her he would return the next day.
The next morning, when the gestation period reached 43 weeks and 5 days, Dr. Hayes arrived at Plaintiff’s home. He was unable to detect the baby’s heartbeat. He directed Plaintiff to his office where he confirmed Plaintiff’s baby had died. Plaintiff was transported to a hospital, where the death of her baby was confirmed. Plaintiff had a C-section performed, and her deceased baby was removed from her body.
Unknown to Plaintiff, four years prior, in 2015, Dr. Hayes had entered a consent order with the North Carolina Medical Board in which he admitted to violating the applicable standard in his care of four patients, each resulting in the death of a baby. In that 2015 Consent Order, Dr. Hayes agreed he would refer any patient experiencing a high-risk pregnancy, including any patient reaching 42 weeks of gestation, to a maternal fetal medicine specialist for consultation.
In sum, Dr. Hayes was in knowing violation of his 2015 Consent Order by failing to refer Plaintiff to another doctor once her gestation period reached 42 weeks. He instead chose to continue his care of Plaintiff for another twelve days, resulting in the death of Plaintiff’s baby. Also, as a result of Dr. Hayes’s actions, Plaintiff suffered physical and emotional harms, some of which are permanent in nature.
In her North Carolina medical malpractice complaint and at trial, Plaintiff sought recovery only for her noneconomic, actual damages (e.g., pain and suffering) and not for her economic, actual damages (e.g. hospital bills) or for punitive damages. Based on Plaintiff’s evidence, the jury awarded Plaintiff $7,500,000.00 in actual, noneconomic damages. The trial court reduced the jury’s award to $656,730.00 pursuant to N.C.G.S. § 90-21.19(a), which caps awards for noneconomic damages caused by ordinary negligence in the medical malpractice context.
On appeal, Plaintiff argued the Legislative Cap is unconstitutional, violating her right to a jury trial under Article I, section 25 of the North Carolina Constitution.
The Court of Appeals of North Carolina stated in its August 20, 2025 Opinion: “It appears Plaintiff’s evidence were sufficient to bring the matter within subsection (b) of the Legislative Cap statute. Had Plaintiff, through her counsel,
preserved and made arguments and the jury had found that Plaintiff had suffered permanent injury due to gross negligence by Dr. Hayes, the trial court would not have had the authority under the Legislative Cap statute to reduce the jury’s award … Plaintiff, through her counsel, though, chose to proceed solely with a claim for noneconomic damages based on ordinary negligence, thereby putting at issue the constitutionality of the Legislative Cap.”
The North Carolina appellate court held: “we conclude the Legislative Cap is constitutional as applied to those malpractice claims based on “wrongs” which did not occur prior to the enactment of the Legislative Cap. In this case, Plaintiff did not have a property right in her claims against Defendants until 2019, years after the Legislative Cap was enacted, and the Legislature has the power to “define the circumstances under which a remedy is legally cognizable”
without impairing the right to a jury trial. Rural Empowerment, 281 N.C. App. at 65. Therefore, we conclude the Legislative Cap imposed by the trial court reducing the jury’s award did not violate Plaintiff’s right to a jury trial.”
Source Mohebali v. Hayes, M.D., No. COA24-454.
If you or your baby were harmed as a result of medical malpractice during pregnancy, labor, delivery, or shortly after giving birth in North Carolina or in another U.S. state, you should promptly find a North Carolina medical malpractice lawyer, or a medical malpractice lawyer in your state, who may investigate your birth injury medical negligence claim for you and represent you and your baby in a birth injury medical malpractice case, if appropriate.
Click on the “Contact Us Now” tab to the right, visit our website, or call us toll-free in the United States at 800-295-3959 to find medical malpractice attorneys in your state who may assist you.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.
