I.M. v. United States
362 F. Supp. 3d 161
| S.D. Ill. | 2019Background
- In March 2015 Ms. Hartmann presented to Orange Regional Medical Center (ORMC) in labor; a cord prolapse was diagnosed during labor and an emergency C-section followed. The infant I.M. was born depressed, required immediate neonatal resuscitation, intubation, chest compressions, and transfer to Westchester Medical Center for therapeutic cooling. Plaintiffs allege permanent neurologic injury (HIE).
- Plaintiffs sued multiple providers (neonatal nurse practitioner Hines, neonatologist Senguttuvan, ORMC, labor nurse Bast, others), alleging medical malpractice, lack of informed consent, loss of services, and negligent hiring/supervision (against ORMC). Some MCHC providers were dismissed and substituted by FTCA claims against the United States.
- Key factual disputes relevant to summary judgment: timing and authorship of orders and administration of sodium bicarbonate and phenobarbital; timing/placement of endotracheal tube and adequacy of ventilation; whether early twitching represented seizures; when/if Dr. Senguttuvan was called and what care she personally directed.
- Plaintiffs relied principally on two experts: Dr. Stuart Danoff (neonatology) and Dr. Benjamin Hamar (obstetrics). Defendants challenged Danoff’s qualifications and reliability but court found him sufficiently qualified and his opinions admissible at this stage.
- Procedural posture: multiple summary judgment motions by Hines, ORMC & Bast, and Senguttuvan. The Court denied summary judgment as to medical malpractice and (limited) loss-of-services claims, granted summary judgment for defendants on lack of informed consent and on ORMC negligent hiring/supervision claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility/qualification of Plaintiffs' neonatology expert (Dr. Danoff) | Danoff is an experienced neonatologist whose opinions support breach and causation (delayed bicarb/phenobarbital, malpositioned ETT, seizures). | Defendants argue Danoff is unqualified (long retired, limited recent CME, disputed credentials) and his opinions are unreliable under Rule 702/Daubert. | Court: Denied Daubert challenge — Danoff is sufficiently qualified and his methodology/reasons are adequate to survive summary judgment; credibility/weight left for jury. |
| Medical malpractice by neonatal providers (Hines and Senguttuvan) | Plaintiffs: Hines and Senguttuvan delayed/failed to administer treatments (sodium bicarbonate, phenobarbital), mismanaged ventilation/ETT placement, causing worsening acidosis and HIE. | Defendants: actions consistent with NRP and standards; some interventions were timely or controversial (sodium bicarbonate use); Senguttuvan contends she arrived after critical events and had no duty. | Court: Genuine disputes of material fact exist on breach and causation; denied summary judgment to Hines and Senguttuvan on malpractice. |
| ORMC vicarious/independent liability and Nurse Bast liability | Plaintiffs: ORMC may be vicariously liable under emergency exception or apparent agency; Bast committed independent negligent acts (monitoring, delays). | ORMC: many providers were private or employed by MCHC/NAPA; ORMC not vicariously liable; Bast followed attending orders and no independent negligence. | Court: Denied summary judgment—factual disputes exist whether emergency/ostensible agency applies (so vicarious liability possible) and whether Bast committed independent negligent acts. |
| Lack of informed consent (mother's claim) | Plaintiffs: failures to disclose risks/alternatives relating to delivery/resuscitation. | Defendants: treatment was emergent; statutory and case law bar informed consent claims for emergency procedures; plaintiffs offered no expert on disclosure sufficiency. | Court: Granted summary judgment for defendants on lack of informed consent (no expert proof and emergency-treatment statutory bar). |
| Negligent hiring/training/supervision (ORMC) | Plaintiffs: ORMC negligently hired/supervised staff involved in care. | ORMC: no evidence of negligent hiring/retention; claim fails as a matter of law. | Court: Granted ORMC summary judgment on negligent hiring/training/retention/supervision (no evidence). |
| Loss of services / medical expenses (mother's derivative claim) | Plaintiffs seek loss of services and medical expenses for I.M.'s injuries. | Defendants: plaintiff must prove value of lost services; absence of evidence defeats loss-of-services claim. | Court: Denied summary judgment only as to medical expenses testified to by mother; dismissed/rejected loss-of-services for lack of evidence of value. |
Key Cases Cited
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (summary judgment standard and burden on movant)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (trial court gatekeeping of expert admissibility)
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Daubert gatekeeping applies to all expert testimony)
- Brod v. Omya, Inc., 653 F.3d 156 (construe facts in light most favorable to non‑movant on summary judgment)
- Psihoyos v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 748 F.3d 120 (summary judgment principles)
- Hill v. St. Clare's Hosp., 67 N.Y.2d 72 (hospital vicarious liability principles)
- Sitts v. United States, 811 F.2d 736 (expert testimony generally required in medical malpractice under New York law)
- Toth v. Community Hosp. at Glen Cove, 22 N.Y.2d 255 (hospital shielded when staff merely follow private attending's orders unless independent negligence shown)