 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Pope v. Cumberland County Hospital System7/19/2005
A: Yes, because once they realized the baby was not responding to the resuscitation and was pale, they had to assume that the pallor, the pale color, was from blood loss. At that point they would have asked for blood and then immediately given . . . 20 milliliters per kilogram or 60 milliliters of normal saline while waiting for the blood to get from the blood bank. Typically in a hospital such as this, one can run to the blood bank, sign out the blood, get back up, and have it available to give within five minutes. So from 4:47 to 4:52 they could have been giving more volume, having realized that the baby had lost a lot of blood, and then by 4:52, they could have been giving blood.
Q: All right, so in other words, this is your opinion that reasonable [NNPs] . . . should have recognized by 4:47, this baby needs blood and ordered it?
A: Given the lack of response to the resuscitation over a three-minute period with intubation, chest compressions, and a baby who remained pale, that's--that would have been good evidence for the need to get blood.
However, we must review the evidence in the light most favorable to plaintiffs and deny the motion for directed verdict if there is more than a scintilla of evidence to support each element of plaintiffs' claim. See Taylor, 154 N.C. App. at 353, 574 S.E.2d at 14; Williamson v. Liptzin, 141 N.C. App. 1, 9-10, 539 S.E.2d 313, 318-19 (2000), disc. review denied, 353 N.C. 456, 548 S.E.2d 734 (2001). Moreover, "except in cases so clear that there can be no two opinions among fair-minded people . . . [the jury should] determine whether the intervening act and the resultant injury were such that the original wrongdoer could reasonably have expected them to occur as a result of his own negligence."Barber v. Constien, 130 N.C. App. 380, 388-89, 502 S.E.2d 912, 917-18 (internal quotation omitted), disc. review denied, 349 N.C. 227, 515 S.E.2d 699 (1998).
Here, plaintiffs presented evidence that the actions of the NNPs were a foreseeable result of the failure of the labor and delivery nurses to report their observations of bleeding associated with the fetal distress. Dr. Dillard testified that the way the resuscitation was conducted indicated that the NNPs had no idea that the baby had lost blood; he stated that if the NNPs had the information of the significant bleeding, that the standard of care required them to order blood for the baby. Defendant has not shown that, as a matter of law, the actions of the NNPs were anindependent force which superceded the alleged negligence of the labor and delivery nurses. Plaintiffs' evidence was sufficient to create an inference of causation for the jury, and the trial court erred in entering directed verdict on the negligence claims relating to defendant's labor and delivery nurses.
II.
Defendant sets forth several cross-assignments of error, arguing that the trial court erred in admitting testimony by plaintiffs' experts Dr. Ross and Dr. Dillard on the standard of care for labor and delivery nurses at CFVMC. Defendant contends that it is entitled to a directed verdict on this basis because there were no other expert witnesses to establish negligence by the labor and delivery nurses. However, in reviewing a trial court's order granting a motion for directed verdict, this Court must consider both admissible evidence and inadmissible evidence improperly admitted over the objection of the opposing party. See Haney v. Alexander, 71 N.C. App. 731, 733-34, 323 S.E.2d 430, 432 (1984), cert. denied, 313 N.C. 329, 327 S.E.2d 889 (1985). As the inadmissibility of plaintiffs' expert testimony is not an alternative basis in law to support the directed verdict, this argument is not the
Page 1 2 3 4 North Carolina Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
By using the system, you agree to TERMS OF SERVICE
|