This is a case of appeal being heard in the Second Department of the Supreme Court Appellate Division. The appellant in the case is Rita Prado. The respondents of the case are the Catholic Medical Center of Brooklyn and Queens, Inc. et al.
The plaintiff is appealing a verdict from a medical malpractice suit that was heard in the Queens County Supreme Court. The original verdict made by the Supreme Court was in favor of the defendants, granting a summary judgment in the case. A New York Injury Lawyer said the complaint made by the plaintiff was dismissed.
This court is modifying the previous judgments that were made in the case. The provisions that dismissed the second part of the cause of action that sought to recover damages that were suffered by the plaintiff from the slip and fallare deleted. The plaintiff suffered damages as a result of fearing her impending death and from the physical injuries she sustained as a result of the alleged malpractice made by the defendants.
We are substituting a provision in the original judgment that denied the motion and for the judgment that dismissed the second part of the action against the remaining defendants. We are adding a provision to the case and affirming the other judgments of the matter. There are no disbursements or costs.
The action was to recover damages inter alia for the still birth of the child of the plaintiff. Several years before her pregnancy, Rita Prado, the plaintiff, had undergone a rectocystocele repair. A Brooklyn Personal Injury Lawyer said during her prenatal visits with her doctor it was decided that a vaginal birth would be dangerous and it was decided that a caesarian section would be necessary. On the ninth of February, the plaintiff was admitted to St. John’s Hospital at 10 a.m. She was in labor when she arrived. The caesarian section was not performed until 1:30 p.m. This was because of a delay in performing an EKG even though there were other signs of fetal distress. As a result, the baby was delivered still born.
While the claim that Rita Prado suffered prolonged pain is not actionable because it was not permanent and not a pain that is naturally associated with the birth of a child. However, it is settled that even though there were no physical injuries, a mother may not recover emotionally and psychic harm as a result of giving birth to a still born baby. In this case it cannot be determined that the plaintiff’s fear of death or personal injury was a result of the birth.
We find that while Rita Prado may suffer from emotional injury as a result of her baby being still born, the issues of feeling an imminent fear of death or personal injury as listed in the bill of particulars for the plaintiff are not substantiated. A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said the court finds that the plaintiff cannot make a case based on emotional trauma. Three out of the four judges hearing this case agree.
Malpractice suits can be extremely difficult to navigate. If you have had a medical experience that you believe was the direct result of malpractice by a physician, you need an experienced lawyer on your side. At Stephen Bilkis & Associates we have a team of expert lawyers waiting to help you. You may contact any one of our New York City offices to set up a free consultation. Our litigators will discuss your case with you to determine what the best course of action will be.