One in a million malpractice case no one will touch.

[jeden09]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Georgia

Long story short - my son was born dead and revived 3 times his first day of life due to nurse's negligence. My mother told the head nurses 3 times that something is wrong with the baby - they told her he was fine - when his heart stopped - they came running in and were fortunately able to save him.

The other 2 times it was also due to the nurse's negligence. I filed a formal complaint before I left the hospital.

Anyway at the age of 2 my son set his hands on fire and didn't feel a thing. After he had done a bunch of other unheard of things - I took him to a neurologist in Georgia. After the 3rd visit to the neurologist they told me he must just have a high pain tolerance and they were done with him.

I moved to Rochester NY where I took him to another specialist - within 24 hours - he was diagnosed with brain damage on his frontal lobes. The doctors gave me a written report stating his brain damage as well as their amazement that he does not have cerebral palsy - and told me they are not sure what we could expect. They called him a miracle child and wished us the best.

Well he is now seeing another specialist because it is believed he has more brain damage, we also are suspicious that a couple of "episodes" he has had are actually seizures.

So my son has these issues which we still don't know the whole extreme of. After speaking to 25 lawyers - no one will touch the case because he is not dead or brain damaged enough. Do I just let go of the fact that the 2 nurses that caused my son to have brain damage didn't cause enough to be reprimanded? Also should we be the one's to pay because he is literally a one in a million child? I have spent a fortune on specialist and have no idea what his future holds. There has to be someone that would take this case on?

 

[barry1817]

malpractice?

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Georgia

Long story short - my son was born dead and revived 3 times his first day of life due to nurse's negligence. My mother told the head nurses 3 times that something is wrong with the baby - they told her he was fine - when his heart stopped - they came running in and were fortunately able to save him.

The other 2 times it was also due to the nurse's negligence. I filed a formal complaint before I left the hospital.

Anyway at the age of 2 my son set his hands on fire and didn't feel a thing. After he had done a bunch of other unheard of things - I took him to a neurologist in Georgia. After the 3rd visit to the neurologist they told me he must just have a high pain tolerance and they were done with him.

I moved to Rochester NY where I took him to another specialist - within 24 hours - he was diagnosed with brain damage on his frontal lobes. The doctors gave me a written report stating his brain damage as well as their amazement that he does not have cerebral palsy - and told me they are not sure what we could expect. They called him a miracle child and wished us the best.

Well he is now seeing another specialist because it is believed he has more brain damage, we also are suspicious that a couple of "episodes" he has had are actually seizures.

So my son has these issues which we still don't know the whole extreme of. After speaking to 25 lawyers - no one will touch the case because he is not dead or brain damaged enough. Do I just let go of the fact that the 2 nurses that caused my son to have brain damage didn't cause enough to be reprimanded? Also should we be the one's to pay because he is literally a one in a million child? I have spent a fortune on specialist and have no idea what his future holds. There has to be someone that would take this case on?

If lawyers are not taking a case, then they probably are realizing that either there is no case or that the costs far outweigh any benefits.

remember it is your responsibility in a malpractice case to prove that the person/(s) being sued were negligent.

 

[Mass_Shyster]

my son was born dead and revived 3 times his first day of life due to nurse's negligence. My mother told the head nurses 3 times that something is wrong with the baby - they told her he was fine - when his heart stopped - they came running in and were fortunately able to save him.

The other 2 times it was also due to the nurse's negligence. I filed a formal complaint before I left the hospital.

What did the nurses do that caused your son to be born dead, or caused his heart to stop two more times?

That is the legal issue here.

In your own words, the nurses 'saved' him three times.

In order to prove negligence on the part of the nurses, you must prove, more likely than not, that the treatment they gave fell below the normal standard of care, and that the treatment caused the conditions he is currently experiencing.

An expert completely unrelated to the case (not your mother) would need to conclude that there is a causation between the treatment and the current condition.

The nurses will claim the child was already sick, and their treatment did nothing to worsen the condition.

Even if the nurses were negligent, it will be difficult to prove in a courtroom.

 

[ecmst12]

You do have time, for children the SOL does not usually begin running until the child's 18th birthday. So you do have time to determine what the long term damage is and what kind of deficits he will have (if any). Once you know more, visit the lawyers again.

 

[Zigner]

You do have time, for children the SOL does not usually begin running until the child's 18th birthday. So you do have time to determine what the long term damage is and what kind of deficits he will have (if any). Once you know more, visit the lawyers again.

Georgia does it a bit differently:

9-3-73. Certain disabilities and exceptions applicable

(a) Except as provided in this Code section, the disabilities and exceptions prescribed in Article 5 of this chapter in limiting actions on contracts shall be allowed and held applicable to actions, whether in tort or contract, for medical malpractice.

(b) Notwithstanding Article 5 of this chapter, all persons who are legally incompetent because of mental retardation or mental illness and all minors who have attained the age of five years shall be subject to the periods of limitation for actions for medical malpractice provided in this article. A minor who has not attained the age of five years shall have two years from the date of such minor's fifth birthday within which to bring a medical malpractice action if the cause of action arose before such minor attained the age of five years.

(c) Notwithstanding subsections (a) and (b) of this Code section, in no event may an action for medical malpractice be brought by or on behalf of:

(1) A person who is legally incompetent because of mental retardation or mental illness more than five years after the date on which the negligent or wrongful act or omission occurred; or

(2) A minor:

(A) After the tenth birthday of the minor if such minor was under the age of five years on the date on which the negligent or wrongful act or omission occurred; or

(B) After five years from the date on which the negligent or wrongful act or omission occurred if such minor was age five or older on the date of such act or omission.

(d) Subsection (b) of this Code section is intended to create a statute of limitations and subsection (c) of this Code section is intended to create a statute of repose.

(e) The limitations of subsections (b) and (c) of this Code section shall not apply where a foreign object has been left in a patient's body. Such cases shall be governed by Code Section 9-3-72.

(f) The findings of the General Assembly under this Code section include, without limitation, that a reasonable relationship exists between the provisions, goals, and classifications of this Code section and the rational, legitimate state objectives of providing quality health care, assuring the availability of physicians, preventing the curtailment of medical services, stabilizing insurance and medical costs, preventing stale medical malpractice claims, and providing for the public safety, health, and welfare as a whole.

 

[lealea1005]

Was your pregnancy considered high risk for any reason?
Was anything about your labor considered abnormal or unusual?
Was your son born not breathing, in full cardiac arrest, or both?
What did your Physician tell you regarding your son's condition at birth?
I would like to know why you think the nurses were negligent as well.

Honestly, if 25 attorneys reviewed then turned down your case, Barry was probably right.

 

[ecmst12]

So OP has 10 years instead of 18...should still be plenty of time for them to be able to get a cognitive/developmental assessment on the child.

 

[Zigner]

So OP has 10 years instead of 18...should still be plenty of time for them to be able to get a cognitive/developmental assessment on the child.

No arguments there... (although, I think the 2 year past age 5 may apply in this case).

 

[wyett717]

Perhaps OP should be thanking the nurses that saved her son's life three times rather than trying to sue them for doing such a thing.

 

[lealea1005]

Perhaps OP should be thanking the nurses that saved her son's life three times rather than trying to sue them for doing such a thing.

I second that!

 

[jeden09]

LeaLea and Wyatt

I am very greatful that my son is alive - but if it wasn't for the nurses neglect he wouldn't have the issues he has - The first time they were informed that his heart is stopping and failed to even come in and check - until it completely stopped. And the other 2 times it was actually a technician that revived him as the nurse stood there and told the tech as she rushed him to NICU that this is her patient and the tech has no right to take him - The tech literally pushed the head nurse out of the way and saved my son by running him up to NICU - so before you judge me - please understand the story!!!

 

[jeden09]

Was your pregnancy considered high risk for any reason?
Was anything about your labor considered abnormal or unusual?
Was your son born not breathing, in full cardiac arrest, or both?
What did your Physician tell you regarding your son's condition at birth?
I would like to know why you think the nurses were negligent as well.

Honestly, if 25 attorneys reviewed then turned down your case, Barry was probably right.

I was bedridden for the entire pregnancy - had preterm labor from 4 months on - lost 25 lbs - was hospitalized 7 times.

The night before he was born - I was induced and then stopped abruptly because it was too fast and the doctor wanted to come in the morning when they thought I would be ready.

He was born not breathing in full cardiac arrest

They told me he was fine after being revived - they drugged me with something the night before - I didn't find out the truth until months later.

The nurse's were negligent because they were told 4 times that my sons heart rate keeps getting slower and taking longer to go up after a contraction. They were asked to simply come in the room and check - I was in the room alone with my mother - no one even came in until his heart stopped then they came running.

 

[Zigner]

- but if it wasn't for the nurses neglect he wouldn't have the issues he has -

Ahh, so you've already consulted with a medical expert who has (after a thorough review of all the records) given you this information?

 

[ecmst12]

With all the difficulty with your pregnancy, and the early birth, it sounds like you would have a lot of difficulty proving that any deficits your son MAY have, were caused by anything that happened after his birth (whether there was negligence or not) rather then the difficult pregnancy and premature birth itself.

I will wait for a nurse to comment on the rest of it.

 

[lya]

I was bedridden for the entire pregnancy - had preterm labor from 4 months on - lost 25 lbs - was hospitalized 7 times.

The night before he was born - I was induced and then stopped abruptly because it was too fast and the doctor wanted to come in the morning when they thought I would be ready.

He was born not breathing in full cardiac arrest

They told me he was fine after being revived - they drugged me with something the night before - I didn't find out the truth until months later.

The nurse's were negligent because they were told 4 times that my sons heart rate keeps getting slower and taking longer to go up after a contraction. They were asked to simply come in the room and check - I was in the room alone with my mother - no one even came in until his heart stopped then they came running.

All that the nurses could have done is to have given you oxygen in an effort to give the fetus an oxygen boost before the next contraction and to call the MD. That's it. Granted, it possibly should have been done earlier, but there is no assurance that it would have made any real difference.

Obviously, the cord was being compressed between the fetus and you. The only corrective measure available is to deliver the baby and rescussitate the baby if needed, which it was.

So, whether you had the baby the night before or you received meds the night before or not, the cord was between the fetus and you and during the labor process, it would be compressed. How is that anyone's fault?

For a medmal claim, you must have damages that would not have occurred if the act of negligence had not occurred. There is nothing in your posts that indicates that anyone or anything could have prevented the cord's being compressed between you and the fetus/baby.

Medmal claims are aggressively defended. Your claim is too easy to defend against.

You are in grief, which is expected. You have to move away from seeking to blame others or you will not recover from your grief and you will be less than your precious child needs from his mother. He is a miracle; try to appreciate him more and blame others less.

Let it go. Listen to all the attorneys who have told you there is no case.