Maryland Hospital in Johns Hopkins System Hit With $229M Verdict in Birth Injury Lawsuit
A Baltimore jury handed up the nine-figure verdict in a case over allegations that health care providers gave the mother inaccurate predictions about the possible outcome of the birth after she began to experience preeclampsia.
July 03, 2019 at 03:06 PM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on National Law Journal
A Baltimore jury has hit Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center with a more than $229.6 million verdict for allegedly causing a severe birth injury, according to attorneys representing the plaintiffs.
The verdict was handed up Monday afternoon after two weeks of trial before Judge Audrey J.S. Carrion of the Circuit Court for Baltimore City. According to attorneys, the verdict included $3.62 million in past medical expenses, $1.02 million in lost earnings, $25 million in non-economic damages and $200 million in future damages.
The lawsuit, Byrom v. Johns Hopkins Bayview, stemmed from allegations that health care providers at the hospital gave the mother, Erica Byrom, inaccurately dire predictions about the possible outcome of the birth after Byrom began experiencing preeclampsia. This inaccurate assessment, attorneys contended, led the mother to undergo an unmonitored vaginal delivery, when she should have instead undergone a cesarean section.
Mary Koch of Wais Vogelstein Forman & Offutt, who tried the case along with Keith Forman and Sarah Smith, said testimony from the providers helped convince the jury that the defendant was negligent and caused the injuries. Specifically, she said one provider testified that she went up the chain of command at the hospital regarding the plan that was given to Byrom because of concerns over possible media attention.
“I think that was a fact that was a very revealing fact,” Koch said.
According to the complaint, 16-year-old Byrom was admitted to Southern Maryland Hospital Center's labor and delivery unit Oct. 20, 2014, when the fetus was 25 weeks gestation. Later that evening, Byrom was transferred to Johns Hopkins via helicopter after Byrom started showing signs of a preeclamptic condition, according to the complaint.
The following day, providers began telling Byrom that the outcome for the baby was very poor, and that the infant could suffer neurological defects, paralysis and blindness, the complaint said. A neonatologist was consulted, who also explained that there was a high probability of death or severe neurodevelopmental disability, according to the complaint.
On Oct. 22, 2014, a doctor at the hospital discussed the situation, and Byrom eventually said she did not wish to undergo a C-section, and fetal monitoring was discontinued, the complaint said. Labor was induced the next day, and the baby, Zubida Byrom, was delivered Oct. 24. Zubida was immediately transferred to the NICU, where she was found to have no heart rate and no respiratory effect, the complaint said. The baby was intubated, and chest compressions started, and the baby was resuscitated, the complaint said.
According to Koch, Zubida developed severe cerebral palsy as a result of the alleged negligent care. She can't walk, and must rely on a feeding tube, Koch said.
All of the injuries, Koch said, stemmed from the hospital's inaccurate prognosis for delivery.
“They didn't give her correct information. They led her to believe her baby was going to die,” Koch said.
In an answer to the complaint, the hospital denied any negligence.
According to Koch, the defendant also contended that the injury occurred before the mother got to the hospital, and that it was Byrom who declined the C-section, so there was nothing they could do regarding the birthing method.
Michael Brown and Leianne S. McEvoy of Nelson Mullins represented Johns Hopkins Bayview Medical Center. Brown did not return a call seeking comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLitigators of the Week: A Win for Homeless Veterans On the VA's West LA Campus
The Brother-Sister Litigators Who Took on the FTC Over a North Carolina Hospital Merger
'For Love & Life': Touching Base with Skadden Associate and ALS Advocate Brian Wallach
Litigators of the Week: Zuckerman Spaeder Gets a Post-Trial Acquittal for Doctor Accused of Fraudulent Billing for COVID Tests
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250