Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When an infant is born hypoxic, acidotic and neurologically depressed and goes on to develop permanent brain damage, questions are raised as to when the injury occurred, why it occurred and whether it could have been prevented through the exercise of reasonable care. The answers to those questions will determine whether there is a valid basis for pursuing a claim of medical malpractice. The investigation requires a detailed analysis of the mother's medical history, the prenatal course, the labor and delivery, the neonatal course and the child's neurological outcome.
In most instances, although not always, if the injury occurred prior to the onset of labor, it is difficult to establish that obstetrical management is responsible for the injury. That is because most antenatal causes of injury are difficult to predict, and even more difficult to prevent. That is not the case where the mother has successfully carried the fetus to term or near term and arrives at the hospital carrying a healthy baby, but that baby then suffers an acute asphyxial event in the course of labor and delivery.
Asphyxia has been defined in the perinatal context as 'cessation of respiratory exchange resulting in hypoxia and carbon dioxide accumulation.' Queenan, Management of High Risk Pregnancy, 4th Ed., at page 521. Blackwell Science, Massachusetts, 1999. If the asphyxia is permitted to continue for a sufficient length of time, the fetus will go on to develop a metabolic acidosis, which can be measured through the use of umbilical cord blood gases. While there is some debate as to how low the pH has to go before the fetus can begin to sustain brain damage, even the obstetrical community agrees that an arterial cord pH of less than 7.0, with a base deficit of 12 or more, is sufficient to cause permanent brain damage and cerebral palsy. Neonatal Encephalopathy and Cerebral Palsy, Defining the Pathogenesis and Pathophysiology, American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists and American Academy of Pediatrics, 2003. So when a newborn is delivered with this level of metabolic acidosis, or worse, the focus then turns to whether, looking prospectively, the obstetrical caretakers should have intervened sooner to prevent the child's injuries.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?