Under Pennsylvania law, physicians, nurses, and other healthcare providers in Philadelphia and municipalities throughout the state owe a duty of care to all patients, whether they are children, pregnant women, active adults, or the elderly. When a medical professional’s error meets the legal elements of negligence, a successful medical malpractice suit can ease the burden of the long-term problems and costs caused by the doctor’s mistake.
In a recent wrongful death case that arose because of medical negligence allegedly committed by Pennsylvania obstetricians, an appeals court found that even a third party—a future, not yet conceived, child—is owed a reasonable duty of care. Previously in Philadelphia, and throughout all counties in Pennsylvania, courts found that medical professionals only owed a duty of care to third parties when mishandling of a communicable disease or contagious illness caused harm to someone other than the patient who was improperly diagnosed, advised or treated.
In Matharu v. Muir, an ongoing Luzerne County case reviewed by the Superior Court of Pennsylvania in June 2011, a doctor, particularly an obstetrician, may be sued for medical malpractice not only if a negligently erroneous decision or treatment of a pregnant woman affects the mother or baby in the current pregnancy, but also if the mistake could affect a future pregnancy or baby.
The case arose from a situation in which the defendant obstetrician’s patient had Rh-negative blood and the father’s blood was Rh-positive. In such a case, if the baby has Rh-positive blood that inadvertently enters the mother’s system, her body will try to reject the baby. To prevent this problem, which can lead to serious health problems for the child, the mother is typically treated with injections of Rh immunoglobulin, or RhoGAM, at 28 weeks of pregnancy, and again right after the baby’s birth.
The mother in the Matharu case had the Rh blood incompatibility problem that was properly treated with injections of RhoGAM during her first pregnancy in 1997. However, in her second pregnancy in 1998, under the care of the defendants, Mrs. Matharu was not treated with RhoGAM even though it was found that she had been exposed to the baby’s Rh-positive blood during the third trimester. Several pregnancies later in 2005, under the care of a different obstetrical practice, the mother’s heightened sensitivity to her unborn baby’s Rh-negative blood allegedly caused the fetus to develop severe anemia.
While in the womb, the baby was given a blood transfusion, during which it developed an irregular heartbeat. Despite an emergency C-section, the baby died two days later. The plaintiff parents believe that because the defendant physicians did not treat her with RhoGAM in 1998, Mrs. Matharu’s body had become super-sensitized to Rh-negative blood, allegedly rejecting the incompatible blood of the 2005 fetus that led to the baby’s tragic death. The Matharus are suing the obstetricians, claiming that they negligently allowed the mother to go untreated after her 1998 pregnancy, and that this negligence resulted in the loss of their child born in 2005.
The court held that an obstetrician has a duty of care to help prevent health problems or death for the mother and the unborn baby, as well as for any future fetuses. The defendants, therefore, even though they were not involved in the 2005 pregnancy, did owe a duty of care to Mrs. Matharu in 1998 and to all of her future children who might be injured by the untreated Rh incompatibility problem.
The court stated that the baby born in 2005 was “in a class of persons whose health/life was likely to be threatened by defendants’ failure to administer RhoGAM to Mother in 1998.” The court did not agree with the argument made by the defendants’ medical malpractice attorneys that the case should not be allowed to proceed because the parents assumed the risk of rejection in future pregnancies after Mrs. Matharu did not receive RhoGAM treatment from the defendant obstetrical practice in 1998. On this point the appeals court agreed with the trial judge that it was not clear that the parents understood the risk fully, and the unborn child could certainly not be expected to assume such a risk simply by being conceived.
This case falls in an area of Pennsylvania medical malpractice law called “preconception torts.” Philadelphia-area medical malpractice lawyers may soon rely on this ruling to broaden the scope of negligence in other cases. It is very likely that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court will take up the issue on appeal, and experienced medical malpractice attorneys in Philadelphia and all counties of Pennsylvania will be watching for the final outcome.
The law firm of Messa & Associates litigates cases like this involving birth-related injuries or other cases involving medical errors resulting in injury or death. The Philadelphia-based firm is known for its medical expertise, and has a wide network of respected physicians and university professors to call upon as medical experts, both for the purpose of evaluating the viability of a case, and for testifying in court. In addition, Messa & Associates has a physician and nurse on staff to assure knowledgeable research and representation at all stages of the case.
A Philadelphia medical practice attorney with the expertise and knowledge that is required to get the results you need is available at Messa & Associates. Call 1-877-MESSA-LAW toll-free to set up a free and confidential consultation regarding all aspects of your or your loved one’s injury. Don’t be overwhelmed by the battle for your rights. Get a compassionate, attentive and aggressive team to battle for you. Call today or visit us at www.messalaw.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment