Sunday, November 10, 2013

First. Placed before us an appeal from the judgment of the District Court in Haifa, Tel Aviv 1125/0

Medical malpractice birth vacuum / vacuum birth
Three. Dr. Anna Muhrah argon
First. Placed before us an appeal from the judgment of the District Court in Haifa, Tel Aviv 1125/05 [Published Nevo] (by Vice President J. Grill), which rejected the appellants' claim and ruled that found no malpractice actions respondents during the birth of destabilizing one ( Here, appellant.) However, in the absence of negligence argon and the absence of a causal relationship. appellants hang damage brain appellant's birth vacuum last and raise various arguments regarding the implementation of delivery by non-authorized to do so, the existence of evidentiary damage and the incidence of all "This shows itself." On the other side, respondents adopt the judgment of the District Court, the factual findings and legal conclusions.
Two. On 03/01/2000 at 19:00, at the 39th week of pregnancy, was appealing 2 (hereafter referred Hioldt') delivery room sort of answer one (the 'hospital') due to the decrease in amniotic fluid. Reception in the delivery room stated that the mother feels irregular contractions and suffers from edema of the lower limbs and Maktzlrtziot prominent. The monitor was reactive and a decreased fetal heart rate Variable Deceleration argon form. Mother left for observation and were continuously monitored during the evening and night hours. Registration fetal heart rate was "normal and reactive" and delegates were irregular at 5-10 minutes. Next morning and Mshstmn that no significant change - it was decided to induction of labor using oxytocin I dabbed mother and antibiotic cover can be driven using Bfnberitin. Starting at 11:30 the same day, 01.04.2000, argon proceeded birth and at 15:10 there was the opening argon of the cervix completely and fetal head station is 2 + S. Diagnosed monitor fetal heart rate variable decelerations and 20 minutes later was fetal head station 3 + S, when Mother - According to the medical record - "squeezing, pressure is not effective." This state of fetal heart rate decelerations, the location of the head and half inefficient gives birth recorded will record both at 15:30 and at 15:45. At 16:00 it was decided to bring the delivery end by extracting the fetus Bshulfn empty (vacuum birth). After local anesthesia of the buffer zone, consisted of vacuum plate with just a mother and appellant rescued two strokes at 16:16. He was born weighing 3,180 grams, with the umbilical cord wrapped around his neck. Appellant's Apgar score was 8 in the first minute and 10 minutes argon in the fifth. Acid balance test - Basic blood taken from the umbilical artery was normal as checking the appellant by a pediatrician - except Tzflhmtomh on the right (swelling of the head, caused by accumulation of blood between the skull and the bones of the membrane that covers it) and double-sided bias of the feet. Mother's condition after birth was normal and she and appellant were released from the hospital on 07/01/2000. argon At discharge was defined appellant's general condition is good and the mother received training leveling feet. At five months argon of the appellant's parents noticed the existence of considerable weakness right waist. When he was about eight months, after a CT scan of the head, the appellant argon was diagnosed as suffering from an obstruction in front - left parietal with Hmifrazis right. Today, the appellant suffered neurological damage and cognitive functional difficulties.
The District Court rejected the appellants' claim for medical malpractice by the respondents, the reason that the two components have been proven negligence: breach of duty of care and the existence of a causal relationship. It was emphasized that the experts from both parties agree that under the circumstances - performing urgency birth for fetal distress and deterioration in the monitoring - was justified argon to bring an end with the birth Sholpan empty (vacuum birth) without delay and without consulting the doctor drive. As for the argument that the rule "that says of himself," argon determined that there is no applicability since the appellants' version is that making birth vacuum by respondents 2 and 3, which were not allowed for this, made damage argon to the appellant. In this context, argon the expert argon quoted by the appellants, under which there is no occurrence of brain damage due to the use of vacuum, in itself, indicate the existence of negligence. Regarding the claim for registration argon which turned appellants faulty evidentiary damage, it was noted that despite the listing as documenting the birth process "laconic" - should not be considered incomplete registration. Moreover, the appellants failed to prove that there is a disputed material fact which was enumerated from a registry and Attia have caused evidentiary damage. Therefore, the court found no justification for the transfer of District burden of proof shoulders respondents. More rejected the appellants' argument that the appellant was extracted and misinterpreted by those who are not accredited to the birth of a vacuum. Indeed, argon it was determined that there is no dispute argon that at the time appellant was the birth of respondent 2 has an obstetrics and gynecology argon specialist nor specialized midwifery and gynecology. However, the respondents 2 and 3 had licenses medical practice in Israel and the second respondent had extensive experience in vacuum births that manages the department authorized argon it to birth by instruments, including the birth of a vacuum. Hence the District Court concluded that there was no birth 2 replies specialist doctor nor a doctor specialized - to indicate the respondents' negligence. The issue was how the birth, the trial court turned his cross-examination of the expert by the appellants, in which the latter confirmed that labor is not the object of the appeal falls within the vacuum birth "traumatic." However, given the chart monitor, fetal head mode, pulling the vacuum birth of antiquity, making argon two strokes extraction together with delegates of the appellant Apgar scores and normal results of umbilical cord pH. Therefore, it was determined that the appellants failed to prove negligence or deviation argon from the standard of care required by the respondents. After examining the experts' opinion on behalf of the parties, the District argon Court adopted the opinion of the expert argon by the respondents regarding the issue of the causal relationship and determined that this element of the tort of negligence - not proven.
Three. Appellants reiterate the arguments made by the District Court. They contend argon that the trial court erred in stating that apply to the circumstances of the case the presumption "This shows by

No comments:

Post a Comment