• Plaintiffs attorney Geoffrey Fieger has already twice asked the entire Ohio Supreme Court to recuse itself.
• Plaintiffs are seeking $50 million in prejudgment interest.
• The claim that the caesarean was delayed is entirely bogus; plaintiffs’ experts deliberately confused the “emergency” (i.e., non-scheduled) caesarean with a “crash” caesarean.
• Plaintiffs sandbagged the damages claim by claiming before trial they would only seek $4 million, and then changing the estimates on the stand by making hypothetical assumptions not supported by any expert evidence.
• Fieger’s opening argument regularly made references to evidence excluded in limine.
• Fieger had an anesthesiologist opine on neurological matters.
• Fieger’s prejudicial conduct at trial, including race-, religion-, and class-baiting, has to be read to be believed. How there wasn’t a mistrial or a revocation of pro hac vice status is jaw-dropping.
• Counsel of record for two of the co-defendants is Drug and Device Law co-blogger Mark Herrmann.

Again, the lengthy dissent in the appellate court is worth reading.

Mark A. McLeod v. Mt. Sinai Medical Center briefing is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

So they sued the clinic for malpractice and infliction of emotional distress. (Just for good measure, they sued their obstetrician, who had nothing whatsoever to do with the actual fertilization; the court dismissed that claim. Gee, I wonder why medical malpractice insurance rates are so high.) The court rejected the emotional distress claim, ruling that (as most courts do) a baby being born is not an injury to the parents, but it allowed the malpractice claim to proceed.

Speaking of emotional distress, the judge handling the case quoted the parents as saying things every child wants to hear from her parents:

“[W]e are reminded of this terrible mistake each and every time we look at her.”

and

“We are conscious of and distressed by this mistake each and every time we appear in public.”

I haven’t yet found any quotes saying that it’s not about the money, but I did note these gems:

• “My clients never sought publicity for this case,” their attorney, Howard J. Stern, said in a brief statement. “This is obviously a very sensitive matter. The family would like to maintain what little privacy they have left.” (Newsday)
• “‘We fear that our daughter will be the object of scorn and ridicule by other children, both in school and as she grows up,’ they said.” (Daily News)
• “The family is so distraught that they have not even told many of their relatives about the situation. The Andrews fear the natural father may try to come forward and claim rights to the girl, the suit says.” New York Post

Uh, yeah. Clearly, those were their top concerns.

Obviously (assuming the allegations are true), one can’t even begin to defend the clinic’s incompetence; a lawsuit is legally justified. But if one’s concern is really about privacy, is really about whether their daughter is going to be subject to ridicule, is really about whether the natural father might try to claim the girl, then I’m not sure litigation is the way to go. On the other hand, if one’s primary concern is money…

One Big Happy Family is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

$14 million for wrongful birth is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Update: No cameras in the delivery room is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Taxpayers on hook for $60.9M cerebral palsy case is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

John Edwards goes to Wall Street is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Andrew Pesce, consultant obstetrician at Westmead Hospital in Sydney, told the conference litigation was a factor in the caesarean rates.

No obstetrician had ever been sued for doing a caesarean, while some of the largest medical negligence payouts — including the $11 million Calandre Simpson case in 2001- – followed claims the doctor should have performed a caesarean section earlier, Dr Pesce said.

(Adam Cresswell, “Midwives left ‘powerless’ by soaring caesar births”, The Australian, Sept. 5). See Nov. 29, 2004; Jul. 18 and Aug. 13, 2003; and Feb. 5, 2001.

Caesarean sections in Australia is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Delivery-room camera bans is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

Finding an OB in Illinois is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system

“On a practical level, many women prefer vaginal birth because they recover more quickly and with less pain than they do from a Caesarean. In addition, each Caesarean increases the risk of complications in the next pregnancy, so women who want more than two or three children often hope to avoid the operation.

“Some doctors and hospitals freely acknowledge that fear of being sued has driven their decisions. Hospitals say they cannot comply with guidelines issued in 1999 by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, which call for a doctor to be available ‘immediately’ throughout active labor during such a birth, to perform an emergency Caesarean if needed. Previous guidelines had called for them to be ‘readily’ available.” (Denise Grady, New York Times, Nov. 29)(via Lone Star Times). We covered the issue Jul. 18, 2003.

“Repeat Caesareans Becoming Harder to Avoid” is a post from Overlawyered - Chronicling the high cost of our legal system