I need Help With A Case For My Son

My son was born 5 weeks prematurely due to an undiagnosed infection that my doctor refused to see me for. My waters broke and he was born the next morning. Upon birth he was grunting but crying. They put him on cpap for 7 hrs and then he was on room air the rest of his nicu stay. He was in the nicu for 9 days. I had to consent for a chest x-ray and a spinal tap because they suspected he might have an infection. He never had any infection. When I got to the nicu to see him after my epidurl had worn off he was hooked up to an iv and given antibiotics. No one ever explained to me what meds he was on, why, or what the side affects were. He was given ampicillian and gentamicin. I was never told this medicine could result in deafness, kidney disease or worse. He passed his newborn hearing screen but 3 weeks later I noticed he never responded to sounds, any sound. So I took him back to an audiologist and they confirmed after extensive hearing testing that he has severe to profound hearing loss most likely caused by the gentamicin. I am flaggerghasted and stunned and hurt. I never would have allowed them to give my son this medicine had I known. I contacted a lawyer and he said he didn't feel I had a case. HOW can I not have a case? How can doctors give patients drugs without informed consent and get away with it? I think the law needs to change and I want to know what I can do and how? Do you guys think I have a case? I understand this treatment is the standard of care but my pediatrician even said that 1 she'd NEVER prescribe that and 2 they could have just given him the ampicillian and held off on the pennicillian.

I suggest you don't stop with just one lawyer's opinion. You might have to talk to many just to get one who will take a run at the hospital.

thank you adjuster jack. Will someone eventually take this case? I'm calling everyone in the phone book.

there was never any infection. i see your point but since was son was healthy and not sick then yes the risks outweighed the benefit. they harmed him for life. how is that worth the risk?

You can keep on trying to find an attorney, but I suggest that you also concentrate on resources to help your son.

I am not a medical person, but there are more reatments for deafness these days.  Cochlear implants, for example, may or may not be a possiblity here.  If they are a reasonable option (and only an appropriate physician who specializes in this area can tell you for sure), he probably woud have the surgery within a couple of years.  There's a very good chance that he would hear normally after the surgery and that his speech, etc., would develop normally as well. 

I am not saying that the prospect of a young child having surgery, etc., is one that you are going to look forward to.  But, do take the time to learn about medical options for him.  There may be more out there than you realize.

Infection is a known  risk of premature birth and you state this treatment is the standard of care.  The risk of not treating may be loss of life.

"Do you guys think I have a case?"

The ONLY one who can determine if you have a case is a medical malpractice attorney after careful review of your son's records by a medical expert.  No one on a board can possibly make a guess as to whether you have a case based on what you have written.  

The only advise we can provide is that you discuss with a few other medmal attorneys.  If several come to the same conclusion, you do not have grounds to sue.

"there was never any infection."

Newborns born to mothers with a known infection are treated with broad spectrum antibiotics IMMEDIATELY as a standard protocol until infection is RULED OUT.  The reason is if the newborn develops the infection it turns into meningitis and septicemia VERY quickly and the consequences are at best: developmental delays, lifelong seizures, cerebral palsy, DEAFNESS, and at worst death from the infection. 

Had then not treated him and he suffered the consequences of the infection you would be wanting to sue for that instead.  FYI: your pediatrician saying she would never treat with gentamycin is not the same as a neonatologist.  Neonatal medicine is ENTIRELY different than general pediatrics and they do advanced training in critical care for newborns. 

It doesn't mean you shouldn't run the facts past a med/mal attorney but don't be surprised if several tell you that because they followed the standard of care doesn't mean the bad outcome is negligent.

so what you're saying is that it was perfectly fine for them to give my son a drug, KNOWING he could have life long deafness and kidney failure but who cares about that? They could have given him a different drug that didn't do the same thing. Vancamicin for instance. It doesn't cause deafness or kidney failure. yes in my eyes it was neglegence. They harmed my son. If you were in my shoes how would you feel? There was no fever, no emergency, nothing. No CLEAR signs of infection. I was NEVER informed either of any side affects or risks. Why am I NOT allowed as the parent to be informed in my child's medical care? Drs do NOT know all.

While your participation here is appreciated, the following statement,

Had they not treated him and he suffered the consequences of the infection you would be wanting to sue for that instead.

seems unfair and judgmental.  We ask you to please keep in mind the issues here, particularly in this forum, can be very emotional and we want to foster a welcoming atmosph...

Thanks,

Sharon 

"so what you're saying is that it was perfectly fine for them to give my son a drug, KNOWING he could have life long deafness and kidney failure but who cares about that?"

It isn't that they dose newborns with gentamycin carelessly.  Which drugs are chosen depends greatly upon what type of infection the mother has IF known.  If it isn't then they have to act with the broadest spectrum to cover all the bases until they rule infection out or a known bacteria is identified.

"There was no fever, no emergency, nothing. No CLEAR signs of infection."

As I explained before: when a newborn is born to a mother with an infection they HAVE TO TREAT the baby even if there aren't signs of infection.  I have seen newborns succumb to a maternal infection within an hour of birth.  Neonates do not always run a fever or show the signs of infections they way older kids and adults do.  The physicians have to err on the side the child is developing something that is a threat rather than assume nothing is happening and all is fine.

"Why am I NOT allowed as the parent to be informed in my child's medical care?"

No one said you weren't allowed to be informed.  If they didn't discuss it with you then that is something to address with the hospital.  However, that doesn't mean that they didn't follow the standard of care when giving the antibiotics.  Tragically some babies end up being deaf.  However weighed against the terrible outcome when an infection destroys their brain or takes their life it isn't the worst thing I have seen happen to newborns with a post birth infection. 

"yes in my eyes it was neglegence."

Almost EVERY parent that takes home an infant that isn't a perfect healthy baby feels this way.  It doesn't mean that under the law it is.  Yes, your child got dealt a blow by having the deafness occur as a side effect of the drug.  Believe me the alternatives had they not treated or delayed it were much uglier.  Hindsight in saying but "he didn't have a fever or any other symptoms" is easy AFTER the fact.  I have YET to see any parent in the NICU tell the doctors "don't do everything you have to to save my child."  Your raw emotions and feeling that you would have made different decisions is colored by what has happened not what you necessarily would have decided in the heat of the moment when given the grim facts if treatment wasn't initiated. 

Again, have your sons medical records evaluated by a med/mal attorney or two or three for that matter.  What we are doing here is trying to give you some additional facts that you may not have had or realized.  If several attorneys tell you there is no case to pursue then you have your answer.

"seems unfair and judgmental."

Sharon:

While it may seem that way as you typically say one should not read what is typed with emotion or tone.  The reality is after 25 years in the medical field and a LOT of it dealing with pediatrics what we see are two extremes when the child isn't perfect with ten fingers, ten toes, and the ability to go on and become the rocket scientist they planned for.  One is my child is horribly damaged because of their treatment and now everyone is negligent and the other is WHY didn't they do XYZ for my child and they should have and everyone is negligent.  It is one of the biggest reasons that two of the highest malpractice insurance rates for physicians are OB/GYN and Neonatology.  EVERYONE wants a perfect baby and when they don't get one absent a genetic cause it MUST be someone's fault who WILL PAY in not only monetary ways but emotional ones as well.

I really wasn't reading it with tone; I thought the sentence could have been omitted, as it was not relevant to the op's question.

I don't doubt your experience one bit, and truly appreciate the time you spend here.  However, I reiterate,&nbsp... come here, particularly in this forum, with emotional circumstances.  We really want to keep the site welcoming.

Best,

Sharon

first of all my baby is perfect. Secondly, he could HEAR when he was born before he got the meds. They double dosed him. First they gave him 2 doses of clindymicin while he was inside me, in case I had gbs because I wasn't tested. Then they administered him the gentimicin. That's highly toxic when combined together and they KNEW this. He never showed ANY signs of infection, nor did I have an infection they knew of at the time. They just thiought he was early. He had no fever, apgar scores of 8,9. I am not going over and over this again. My point was I was NEVER informed he was put on any medicines or why he was, nor did I give consent. Yes that's a HUGE wrong doing in my mind. They would never have had my permission. So please do not side with them. They were wrong. It was their duty to inform me and my right as a patient and a parent to know. That's neglegence.