IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BOONE COUNTY

STATE OF MISSOURI

_________________ and _________________, *

as parents and Next Friends of _________________

_________________, a minor, and _________________ *

_________________, Individually, and _________________

_________________, Individually, *

*

Plaintiffs

*

v.

*

_________________

Serve: _________________ *

_________________

Columbia, MO 65201

*

and

*

_________________

Serve: _________________ *

_________________

Columbia, MO 65201 *

and *

_________________ *

Serve: _________________

_________________ *

Columbia, MO 65201

*

and

*

_________________

Serve: _________________ *

_________________

Columbia, MO 65201 *

Defendants *

* * * * * * * * * * * *

PETITION FOR DAMAGES

COME NOW Plaintiffs, by and through their counsel, and for their cause of action against Defendants allege as follows:

1. Plaintiffs _________________ and _________________, Missouri residents, bring this cause of action individually and as next friends of their son, _________________, a minor. _________________ and _________________ were at all times concerned herein the parents and natural guardians of their son, _________________.

2. Defendants _________________, _________________, _________________, and _________________, are physicians licensed to practice medicine in the State of Missouri and whose primary place of business is within the confines of Boone County, Missouri.

3. Venue and jurisdiction are proper in this Court pursuant to RSMo §§508.010.6 and 538.232, as this action arises from negligent conduct occurring in Columbia, Boone County, Missouri.

4. At all times concerned herein, Defendant _________________ held himself out to the public in general and to _________________ in particular as being an able and skilled obstetrician possessing the same or higher level of skill and training as other members of his profession and that he was well able to render proper and adequate obstetrical care and treatment to _________________ and the baby within her.

5. At all times concerned herein, Defendant _________________ held herself out to the public in general and to _________________ in particular as being an able and skilled obstetrician possessing the same or higher level of skill and training as other members of her profession and that she was well able to render proper and adequate obstetrical care and treatment to _________________ and the baby within her.

6. At all times concerned herein, Defendant _________________ held herself out to the public in general and to _________________ in particular as being an able and skilled obstetrician possessing the same or higher level of skill and training as other members of her profession and that she was well able to render proper and adequate obstetrical care and treatment to _________________ and the baby within her.

7. At all times concerned herein, Defendant _________________ held himself out to the public in general and to _________________ in particular as being an able and skilled obstetrician possessing the same or higher level of skill and training as other members of his profession and that he was well able to render proper and adequate obstetrical care and treatment to _________________ and the baby within her.

8. In 2004, Plaintiff _________________ became pregnant. She began receiving prenatal care on September 15, 2004, at approximately 14 weeks gestation. Her estimated due date was March 16, 2005.

9. During her prenatal course, Mrs. _________________ was followed regularly and she developed an elevation in her blood pressure.

10. From December 29, 2004, through January 1, 2005, Plaintiff _________________ was admitted and evaluated at _________ Medical Center for pregnancy induced hypertension. She was discharged from the hospital on restricted activity with outpatient surveillance.

11. Mrs. _________________’ elevated blood pressure persisted and she was readmitted to __________ Medical Center on January 27, 2005, due to pre-eclampsia. In the hospital, as a result of a worsening clinical course, Plaintiff _________________ was started on magnesium sulfate (to prevent seizures) and was then transferred to _________________ on the afternoon of January 28, 2005.

12. Plaintiff _________________ was admitted to _________________ at approximately 6:00 p.m. on January 28, 2005. Upon admission, the plan of care was for observation, serial blood pressure monitoring, fetal monitoring, and possible induction of labor, if the criteria for severe pre-eclampsia was met. She was at approximately 33 3/7 weeks gestation.

13. At _________________, initial fetal heart rate monitoring was reassuring with the fetal heart rate in the 120’s and reactive. Fetal movement was also noted which is a reassuring sign.

14. On January 29, 2005, Mrs. _________________ remained hospitalized at _________________ and was periodically monitored for blood pressure and fetal heart rate. The baby’s heart rate remained reassuring throughout January 29, 2005. Mrs. _________________’ blood pressure fluctuated, but remained elevated.

15. On the morning of January 30, 2005, Plaintiff _________________ was transferred to the antepartum service by Defendant Dr. _________________. Defendant, Dr. _________________ and her attending, Defendant Dr. _________________, ordered twice a day non-stress tests (analysis of the fetal monitor strip for heart rate accelerations) and monitoring of vital signs every four hours.

16. The non-stress test performed from approximately 9:49 through 10:13 a.m. on January 30, 2005, was interpreted as “non-reactive” which is a concerning finding. This study, upon information and belief, was reviewed and interpreted by Defendant Dr. _________________ and Defendant Dr. _________________.

17. Plaintiff Mrs. _________________’ blood pressure, already elevated, was noted to be increased further at about 11:50 a.m. on January 30^th to 155/97.

18. Despite the precarious situation of mother and unborn child, no fetal monitoring was performed from the conclusion of the abnormal non-stress test around 10:15 a.m. until the performance of a repeat non-stress test from approximately 6:50 p.m. through 7:30 p.m. on January 30, 2005.

19. Throughout the day of January 30, 2005, Plaintiff _________________ and her unborn child also were also under the care of Defendant _________________ and Defendant Dr. _________________.

20. Blood pressure measurements at 2:00 p.m. (187/105) and 3:00 p.m. (185/107) on January 30^th were highly elevated and should have been very concerning. Elevated blood pressure is a known cause of placental abruption.

21. Dr. _________________ and _________________ reviewed and interpreted the second non-stress test performed beginning at 6:50 p.m. This test was also interpreted as non-reactive.

22. Other testing performed and reviewed by Defendant _________________ and Defendant Dr. _________________ at the time of the second non-stress test around 7:00 p.m. on January 30, 2005, was likewise very worrisome. A contraction stress test was also abnormal and revealed decelerations with most contractions. Further, a biophysical profile resulted in the ominous score of 2/10. (A biophysical profile is a test incorporating the results of the non-stress test with observations from an ultrasound exam).

23. At approximately 8:00 p.m., Mrs. _________________ was brought to labor and delivery from the antepartum service and evaluated by Dr. _________________. A vaginal exam revealed Mrs. _________________ to be only 1 centimeter dilated. Mrs. _________________’s blood pressure remained severely elevated.

24. At 8:30 p.m. on January 30^th, Defendant Dr. _________________ planned to proceed with a caesarean section. Subsequently, however, after consultation with Defendant _________________, the plan was changed to perform a rupture of membranes, and to do fetal monitoring, followed by a c-section, if there was fetal intolerance.

25. Fetal monitoring was reinstituted at approximately 9:10 p.m. At and after approximately 9:50 p.m., the fetal heart rate tracings are not interpretable.

26. After an ultrasound revealed no fetal heart rate, Mrs. _________________ was sent to the operating room at 10:28 p.m. for an emergent c-section.

27. _________________ was delivered by c-section by Defendant _________________ and Defendant Dr. _________________ at 10:33 p.m. on January 30, 2005. At the time of delivery, predictably, after having a prolonged period of elevated blood pressure, it was noted that a placental abruption had occurred (a separation of the placenta from the uterus), depriving the unborn child of necessary blood and oxygen.

This entry was posted on Sunday, January 6th, 2008 at 10:44 and is filed under cp. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.