The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Paul Bryant Sivley, a minor, suffered an injury for which compensation should be awarded under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
Findings Of Fact As observed in the preliminary statement, neither petitioner nor anyone on her behalf appeared at hearing, and no proof was offered to support her claim. Respondent, in light of such failure, declined the opportunity to offer any evidence. Consequently, there being no proof, it cannot be factually resolved whether Paul Bryant Sivley, a minor, suffered a "birth- related neurological injury" as alleged in the claim for benefits.
Findings Of Fact By stipulation filed November 12, 1993, petitioners and respondent stipulated as follows: COMES NOW, CHARLES PATRICK, ESQUIRE, Attorney for CLYDE RAY, JR., a minor, and LISA TAYLOR and CLYDE RAY SR., individually and as parents and natural guardians of CLYDE RAY, JR., and COMES NOW, MARK J. ZIENTZ, ESQUIRE, Attorney for FLORIDA BIRTH RELATED NEUROLOGICAL INJURY COMPENSATION ASSOCIATION, who hereby stipulate and agree as follows: That pursuant to Chapter 766, Florida Statutes, a claim was filed on behalf of the above-styled infant against the Florida Birth Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association (the Association) on behalf of Clyde Ray, Jr., and Clyde Ray, Sr., and Lisa Taylor (the Petitioners) for benefits under Chapter 766, F.S. That a timely filed claim for benefits complying with the requirements of F.S. 766.305 was filed by Petitioners and a timely denial was filed on behalf of the Association. That the Division of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction of the parties and the subject matter of this claim. That Section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes, requires an infant to suffer both a permanent and substantial mental and physical impairment to fall within the definition of a "Birth-related neurological injury" making said infant eligible for coverage by the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan. The parties agree that the infant, Clyde Ray, Jr., does not exhibit substantial physical impairment so as to fit within the strict definition of claims covered by the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association under Section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes. That the infant, Clyde Ray, Jr., was born at Jackson Memorial Hospital on June 17, 1990, and that said hospital was a licensed Florida Hospital and the attending physicians were participating physicians within the meaning of Chapter 766, Florida Statutes. WHEREFORE, based upon the above stipulated set of facts, it is respectfully requested that the Division of Administrative Hearings approve the stipulations as being consistent with the evidence in this cause and enter an order denying the claim against the Association on the basis that Clyde Ray, Jr., did not suffer a birth-related neurological injury as defined by Section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Kyndall Evans, a minor, suffered an injury for which compensation should be awarded under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
Findings Of Fact Etta Evans and John Evans are the parents and natural guardians of Kyndall Evans (Kyndall), a minor. She was born a live infant on April 11, 1994, at Baptist Hospital, a hospital duly licensed in the State of Florida and located in Pensacola, Florida. Kyndall's birth weight was in excess of 2500 grams. The physician providing obstetrical services during the birth of Kyndall was Reginald A. Woods, M.D., who was at all times material hereto, a "participating physician" in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (the Plan), as defined by Section 766.302(7), Florida Statutes. Kyndall's delivery at Baptist Hospital on April 11, 1994, was apparently difficult due to her large birth weight, and when delivered she was noted to have suffered an injury to her upper right brachial plexus, an Erb's palsy, which affected her range of motion on the upper right extremity, including the arm, forearm and hand. With therapy, her range of motion had significantly improved by the time she was 15 months of age. A brachial plexus injury, such as that suffered by Kyndall during the course of her birth, is not, anatomically, a brain or spinal cord injury, and does not affect her mental abilities. Moreover, apart from the brachial plexus injury, Kyndall did not suffer any other injury during the course of her birth. Consequently, the proof fails to demonstrate that Kyndall suffered an injury to the brain or spinal cord caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury during the course of labor or delivery, and further fails to demonstrate she is presently permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired.
The Issue At issue is whether Wesley Dunaway, III, a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (Plan).
Findings Of Fact Stipulated facts Daphne Waller is the natural mother of Wesley Dunaway, III, a minor. Wesley was born a live infant on February 11, 2003,2 at North Florida Regional Medical Center, a licensed hospital located in Gainesville, Alachua County, Florida, and his birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. The physician providing obstetrical services at Wesley's birth was Anthony Agrios, M.D., who, at all times material hereto, was a "participating physician" in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as defined by Section 766.302(7), Florida Statutes. Coverage under the Plan Pertinent to this case, coverage is afforded by the Plan for infants who suffer a "birth-related neurological injury," defined as an "injury to the brain . . . caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate postdelivery period in a hospital, which renders the infant permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired." § 766.302(2), Fla. Stat. See also §§ 766.309 and 766.31, Fla. Stat. Here, indisputably, Wesley is permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired.3 What remains to resolve is whether the record supports the conclusion that, more likely than not, Wesley's neurologic impairment resulted from an "injury to the brain . . . caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate postdelivery period," as required for coverage under the Plan. The cause and timing of Wesley's neurologic impairment To address the cause and timing of Wesley's neurologic impairment, the parties offered medical records related to, inter alia, Ms. Waller's antepartum course; those associated with Wesley's birth and subsequent development; and the opinions of Dr. Michael Duchowny, a pediatric neurologist, and Dr. Donald Willis, an obstetrician, regarding the likely etiology of Wesley's impairment. (Exhibits 1-13). As for the etiology of Wesley's neurologic impairment, it was Dr. Duchowny's opinion, based on the results of his neurologic evaluation of Wesley on October 25, 2004, and review of the medical records, that, while of unknown etiology, Wesley's neurologic impairment was most likely prenatal (developmental) in origin, having occurred prior to the onset of labor, and not associated with oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation. As for Dr. Willis, he, like Dr. Duchowny, was of the opinion that the medical records failed to support a conclusion that Wesley's brain damage was associated with the birth process. Finally, the medical records, including the observations of the physicians who have treated Wesley, while unrevealing as to etiology, also speak to the likelihood of a developmental disorder, as opposed to birth trauma, as the cause of Wesley's neurologic impairment.4 Given the record, it must be resolved that Wesley's impairments were, more likely than not, occasioned by a developmental abnormality, that preceded the onset of labor, and not by an injury to the brain occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation. See, e.g., Wausau Insurance Company v. Tillman, 765 So. 2d 123, 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)("Because the medical conditions which the claimant alleged had resulted from the workplace incident were not readily observable, he was obliged to present expert medical evidence establishing that causal connection."); Ackley v. General Parcel Service, 646 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(determining cause of psychiatric illness is essentially a medical question, requiring expert medical evidence); Thomas v. Salvation Army, 562 So. 2d 746, 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)("In evaluating medical evidence a judge of compensation claims may not reject uncontroverted medical testimony without a reasonable explanation.")
The Issue At issue in the proceeding is whether Taylor Michelle Kielb, a minor, suffered an injury for which compensation should be awarded under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
Findings Of Fact Fundamental findings Petitioners, Trisha Kielb nee Trisha Peck and David Kielb, are the parents and natural guardians of Taylor Michelle Kielb, a minor. Taylor was born a live infant on June 7, 1997, at Memorial Hospital West, a hospital located in Broward County, Florida, and her birth weight was in excess of 2,500 grams. The physician providing obstetrical services during the birth of Taylor was Nigel Spier, M.D., who was at all times material hereto a "participating physician" in the Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as defined by Section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes. Coverage under the Plan Pertinent to this case, coverage is afforded under the Plan when the claimants demonstrate, more likely than not, that the infant suffered an "injury to the brain or spinal cord caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period in a hospital, which renders the infant permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired." Section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes. Here, the proof demonstrates, more likely than not, that Taylor's neurologic impairment was not associated with any intrapartum injury, hypoxic or traumatic in nature, but is related to an autonomic nervous system dysfunction (also called dysautonomia and Riley- Day syndrome) of otherwise unclear etiology. Consequently, it is unnecessary to otherwise address the cause or timing of her anomaly, or whether Taylor has been rendered permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired. The cause of Taylor's neurologic dysfunction In reaching the conclusion that Taylor suffers a dysautonomia unassociated with any intrapartum injury, the medical records relating to Mrs. Kielb's antepartum and intrapartum course, as well as for Taylor's birth and subsequent development have been carefully considered (Petitioners' Exhibit 1). Also considered was the testimony of Jaime L. Baquero, M.D., a pediatric neurologist who was called upon to examine Taylor and render his opinion regarding the etiology of Taylor's neurologic impairment. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). Pertinent to this case, Dr. Baquero examined Taylor on December 1, 2000, and reported the results of that consultation as follows: I had the opportunity to examine Taylor, after reviewing the medical history regarding neurologic difficulties she has been experiencing since the neonatal period. These included provoked, as well as unprovoked episodes of breath-holding which have been difficult to manage, as well as diffuse hypotonia, manifested by poor muscle tone, developmental delay, gastroesophageal reflux and noisy breathing (early stridor) without a clear etiology. She was evaluated by neurology early on, after presenting with episodes of breath holding since the first day of life. An extensive work-up was undertaken at the time, including brain CT (normal), routine EEG was once normal and once with "right posterior temporal sharps." Video-eeg telemetry monitoring studies done later were normal. EKG and cardiac echocardiography, polysomnography and a comprehensive neurometabolic panel. Ph-probe demonstrated reflux and EKG's and Holter monitoring showed bradycardia, sinus arrest and ideoventricular rhythm. MRI at age 3 weeks was interpreted as "No intrinsic brain abnormality. Extra-axial collections vs. subdurals over the right parietal vertex and behind both cerebellar hemispheres." Of interest, is the fact that, while Taylor appears to have relative insensitivity to pain, she seems to have periods of marked sensitivity to stimulation of the skin. In addition, she has had episodes of abdominal distention and transient episodes of skin discoloration. In 1997, Taylor was seen by Dr. Axelrod who is a specialist in Disorders of the autonomic nervous system. PAST MEDICAL HISTORY: Taylor was born to 25 year old via C-section with breech presentation due to fetal intolerance to labor and non-reassuring fetal heart monitoring, with membranes ruptured 3 1/2 hours prior to delivery. The baby required respiratory support for less than two days, following 100% oxygen with bag and mask. Thin, non-particulate meconium stained amniotic fluid was noted. Apgar scores were 4, 6 and 9 [sic] at one, five and ten minutes respectively. Birth weight was 3.1 kg. Initial blood gas revealed a Ph of 7.21, PC02 51, PO2 of 41 (cord) and a base deficit of -7. Narcan and sodium bicarbonate were given. Antibiotic were given until all cultures, including CSF, were negative. CSF PCR for Herpes Virus was negative, as was the neonatal screening for inborn errors of metabolism. Poor feeding and sucking were noted. Episodes of desaturation with both cyanotic and pallid breath-holding spells were seen frequently, and over time remained refractory to medical treatment. Developmental history reveals that at present she walked 26 mos. and alternates feet when going up and down stairs with assistance. She can't ride a tricycle, she can stack more than five blocks, scribbles but cannot copy a circle. She assists in dressing and undressing. She has difficulty with textured foods and eats mainly baby food. She is not toilet trained. Yet. She uses pronouns, waves bye-bye and follows commands. She knows primary colors and has good eye contact. * * * PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: She is alert, in no acute distress with stable vital signs. There were no dysmorphic features or neurocutaneous signs. There is no organomegaly or audible murmurs. There is upper airway congestion. Head circumference measures 50 cm. Cranial nerves are intact. Motor examination reveals generalized hypotonia with symmetric loss of muscle mass. No fasciculations. There is exaggerated lordosis as posture is assessed. We could not elicit deep tendon reflexes. No fixed spinal deformity is seen. There are no involuntary movements or nystagmus. There is no clonus, persistence of early developmental reflexes and plantar responses were absent. IMPRESSION: Based on a careful review of history and clinical examination and given the lack of cerebral edema on a brain CT obtained within 72 hours, absence of significant acidemia on cord blood gas, five minute apgar above 5, along with signs of autonomic dysfunction, arreflexia, apnea, intermittent cardiac dysrhythmia, relative insensitivity to pain despite apparent episodes of marked tactile hypersensitivity, the presence of poor coordination, hypotonia and breech presentation (present in 23% of babies with dysautonomia vs. 3% normal prevalence); We conclude that Taylor's clinical syndrome is not associated with intrapartum injury but rather associated to autonomic nervous system dysfunction of unclear etiology. Dr. Baquero's opinion is grossly consistent with the proof and is credited.
The Issue Whether Hunter Lewis, a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
Findings Of Fact Fundamental findings Petitioners, Angel Lewis and Jerry Lewis, are the parents and natural guardians of Hunter Lewis, a minor. Hunter was born a live infant on June 2, 2000, at Tallahassee Memorial Hospital, a hospital located in Tallahassee, Florida, and his birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. The physician providing obstetrical services at Hunter's birth was Arthur S. Clements, M.D., who, at all times material hereto, was a "participating physician" in the Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as defined by Section 766.302(7), Florida Statutes.1 Coverage under the Plan Pertinent to this case, coverage is afforded by the Plan for infants who suffer a "birth-related neurological injury," defined as an "injury to the brain . . . caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate postdelivery period in a hospital, which renders the infant permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired." § 766.302(2), Fla. Stat. See also §§ 766.309 and 766.31, Fla. Stat. The cause and timing, as well as the significance of Hunter's neurologic impairment To address the cause and timing of Hunter's neurologic impairment, as well as its significance, Petitioners offered selected medical records relating to Hunter's birth and subsequent development (Petitioners' Exhibit 1); the Verified Medical Opinion of Richard J. Inwood, M.D., a neonatologist (Petitioners' Exhibit 2); and the deposition of Donald C. Willis, M.D., an obstetrician (Petitioners' Exhibit 3). In turn, Respondent offered the deposition of Paul R. Carney, M.D., a pediatric neurologist (Respondent's Exhibit 1). As for the significance of Hunter's impairments, it was Dr. Carney's opinion, based on the results of his neurologic evaluation of November 21, 2002, that Hunter's assessment "indicates substantial cognitive and language impairment," but "very mild long tract neurological findings." Dr. Carney described Hunter's developmental delay as static, as opposed to progressive, and he ventured no opinion as to the cause or timing of Hunter's impairments. As for Dr. Inwood, he was of the opinion that: . . . Hunter Lewis [ ] was delivered by induced labor prior to 38 weeks and had immature lungs. Because of the immaturity of the lungs he suffered hypoxic insult and, to a reasonable degree of medical probability, sustained significant neurological injury. This injury would not have occurred had his delivery been delayed until he had demonstrated lung maturity. His problems are not congenital and did not occur during labor or delivery, but rather after delivery . . . . Notably, Dr. Inwood did not further address Hunter's neurologic injury or, stated otherwise, did not speak to whether in his opinion, Hunter suffered both cognitive and motor impairment and, if so, the significance of each. As for Dr. Willis, he was of the opinion that the medical records revealed no evidence of oxygen deprivation or other trauma associated with labor, delivery, or resuscitation immediately following Hunter's birth. Significantly, the medical records are consistent with the opinions of Doctors Inwood and Willis that the cause and timing of Hunter's impairment was not associated with labor, delivery, or resuscitation, and with the opinion of Dr. Carney that, while Hunter may demonstrate substantial cognitive delay, his motor impairment is mild. Given the record, it must be concluded that the proof demonstrated, more likely than not, that Hunter's impairments were not occasioned by an injury to the brain caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period in the hospital, and that he is not permanently and substantially physically impaired.
The Issue At issue is whether David Britt, a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan. If so, whether the notice requirements of the Plan were satisfied.
Findings Of Fact Fundamental findings Petitioners, Sandra Britt nee Sandra Nap and Frank Britt, are the parents and natural guardians of David Britt, a minor. David was born a live infant on November 9, 1997, at Tampa General Hospital, a hospital located in Tampa, Florida, and his birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. The physicians providing obstetrical services during David's birth included the attending physician, Catherine Lynch, M.D., an attending faculty physician with the University of South Florida, College of Medicine, as well as a number of resident physicians from the University of South Florida, College of Medicine. At the time, Dr. Lynch was a "participating physician" in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as defined by Section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes, and the resident physicians, supervised by Dr. Lynch, were deemed participating physicians under the provisions of Section 766.314(4)(a), Florida Statutes.2 Coverage under the Plan Pertinent to this case, coverage is afforded by the Plan for infants who suffer a "birth-related neurological injury," defined as an "injury to the brain . . . caused by oxygen deprivation . . . occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period in a hospital, which renders the infant permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired." Sections 766.302(2) and 766.309(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Here, NICA has concluded that David suffered a "birth- related neurological injury" and, since obstetrical services were provided by a "participating physician" at birth, proposes to accept the claim as compensable under the Plan. NICA's conclusion is grossly consistent with the proof and, consequently, its proposal to accept the claim as compensable is approved. Notice of Plan participation While the claim qualifies for coverage under the Plan, Petitioners have responded to the healthcare providers' claim of Plan immunity by contending that the hospital and the attending physician3 failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Plan. Consequently, it is necessary to resolve whether, as alleged by the healthcare providers, appropriate notice was given. O'Leary v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, supra. As a prelude to resolving the notice issue, it is noted that Mrs. Britt received her prenatal and intrapartum care at the Genesis Clinic (an obstetric and gynecologic health care facility) and Tampa General Hospital (TGH), facilities owned and operated by the Hillsborough County Hospital Authority. Pertinent to this case, the proof demonstrates that TGH manages the clinic, and provides the necessary nursing and clerical workers; however, prenatal care and intrapartum care are provided, pursuant to an "affiliation agreement," by physicians (faculty and resident) associated with the University of South Florida, College of Medicine, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, who are employed by the Florida Board of Regents. Regarding her prenatal care, the proof demonstrates that Mrs. Britt's initial visit to the Genesis Clinic occurred on March 26, 1997.4 Typically, such a visit would include registration, financial consultation, a tour and orientation, and prenatal lab work. Here, as would be expected, Mrs. Britt initially presented to the front desk where she registered (signed in) and provided certain basic information about herself to complete a patient profile. Following completion of the patient profile, Mrs. Britt presented to the financial counselor, whose office was adjacent to the front desk and faced the patient waiting area. During the course of that meeting, the proof demonstrates that the financial counselor (Norma Kringel, currently known as Norma Kringel Tooley) reviewed Mrs. Britt's patient profile and, apparently satisfied that Mrs. Britt was Medicaid eligible, provided her with a packet (a plastic bag) containing various samples and child care information, as well as a Genesis Social Assessment form to complete. Following completion of that form, the financial consultant provided Mrs. Britt with a brochure prepared by NICA titled "Peace of Mind for an Unexpected Problem," which contained a concise explanation of the patient's rights and limitations under the Plan. Notably, the brochure included the following language: You are eligible for this protection if your doctor is a participating physician in the Association. Membership means that your doctor has purchased this benefit for you in the event that your child should suffer a birth-related neurological injury, which qualifies under the law. Notwithstanding, while the consultant encouraged Mrs. Britt to read the brochure, she did not identify the physicians who would be providing Mrs. Britt's obstetrical care or advise her (as she easily could have) that the physicians who would be providing such care were participants in the Plan.5 The next step in the process presents the most problematic issues with regard to notice. According to the proof, at the conclusion of her meeting with the financial consultant, a new patient, such as Mrs. Britt, was directed to the patient waiting area, where she was to await the health education coordinator (Patricia Ogden, R.N.) for an orientation tour of the facility and classroom presentation. According to Nurse Ogden, it was her established procedure to collect the new patients in the waiting area, and then proceed with a tour of the facility, explaining the various services that were available, followed by a classroom session. During the course of the tour, it was Nurse Ogden's practice to explain to the patients that TGH provides prenatal care at the clinic in "affiliation" with the University of South Florida, College of Medicine, and that the physicians who would be providing obstetrical care were residents (M.D.s) now specializing in obstetrics and gynecology and that their services were under the direct supervision of an attending faculty physician. During the classroom session, it was Nurse Ogden's practice to, inter alia, hold up the "Peace of Mind" brochure to ensure that each new patient had one, explain that the affiliated group of physicians from the University of South Florida who would be providing their obstetric care were participants in the Plan, and advise the patients that if they had any questions regarding the Plan they should consult with their physicians. Following the classroom session, the new patients would then proceed to the final stage of their initial visit, prenatal lab work. From the routine practice established by the clinic for an initial visit by new patients, Intervenors suggest it is reasonable to infer that Mrs. Britt participated in the tour and classroom session, and was therefore informed as to the identity of her physicians (as a group) and that they were participants in the Plan. As additional proof that Mrs. Britt participated in the tour and classroom session, Intervenors point to the Progress Notes of Mrs. Britt's initial visit of March 26, 1997, which contains a check mark next to an item titled "Orientation tour and class session attended by patient," signed by Nurse Ogden. Notably, however, Nurse Ogden took no roll call or otherwise identified the patients who accompanied her on the tour or participated in the classroom session, and executed the Progress Notes confirming a patient's attendance on the tour and at the classroom session based solely on a list of new patients who had registered (signed in) at the reception desk that day. Consequently, the Progress Notes provide no independent or compelling proof, distinguishable from that which might be inferred from the clinic's routine practice, that Mrs. Britt attended the orientation tour and class session on March 26, 1997. Contrasted with the conclusion Intervenors would suggest be drawn from the Clinic's routine procedure for new patients, Mrs. Britt testified that she did not participate in an orientation tour and class session, and was never informed that the physicians who would provide her obstetrical care were participants in the Plan.6 As independent evidence that she did not follow the routine established for new patients, Petitioners point to the clinic's records, which reveal that she did not, as would be routine, present for prenatal lab work on March 26, 1997, but returned to the clinic on March 27, 1997, for that lab work. Given the proof, it cannot be resolved with any degree of confidence that, more likely than not, Mrs. Britt attended the orientation tour and classroom session. Consequently, since the tour and classroom session was the only occasion (apparent from the record) that patients were advised that their physicians were participants in the Plan, it must be resolved that the proof fails to support the conclusion that Mrs. Britt was ever provided notice that her physicians were participants in the Plan. While the proof failed to demonstrate that Mrs. Britt received notice on behalf of the participating physicians, it did demonstrate that TGH provided timely pre-delivery notice to Mrs. Britt, as envisioned by Section 766.316, Florida Statutes. In this regard, the proof demonstrated that on October 19, 1997, during the course of pre-registration at TGH, Mrs. Britt was again given a copy of the brochure (prepared by NICA) titled "Peace of Mind for an Unexpected Problem," which, as previously noted, contained a concise explanation of the patients' rights and limitations under the Plan.
The Issue Whether Eman Mustafa, a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (Plan). If so, whether the hospital and the participating physician gave the patient notice, as contemplated by Section 766.316, Florida Statutes, or whether any failure to give notice was excused because the patient had an "emergency medical condition," as defined by Section 395.002(9)(b), Florida Statutes, or the giving of notice was not practicable.
Findings Of Fact Stipulated facts Shiren Mustafa and Nehad Mustafa are the natural parents and guardians of Eman Mustafa, a minor. Eman was born a live infant on February 22, 2002, at University Community Hospital, a hospital located in Tampa, Florida, and her birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. The physician providing obstetrical services at Eman's birth was Caryn L. Bray, M.D., who, at all times material hereto, was a "participating physician" in the Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as defined by Section 766.302(7), Florida Statutes. Eman's birth and immediate postnatal course At or about 8:00 p.m., February 21, 2002, Mrs. Mustafa, with an estimated delivery date of February 15, 2002, and the fetus at 40 6/7 weeks' gestation, was admitted to University Community Hospital, for induction of labor, and proposed vaginal birth, after prior cesarean section (VBAC). At the time, Mrs. Mustafa's membranes were intact; irregular contractions were noted; vaginal examination revealed the cervix closed, effacement at 60-70 percent, and the fetus at station -2; and fetal monitoring revealed a reassuring fetal heart rate, with a baseline in the 130-beat per minute range. At 9:00 p.m., Cervidil was placed to soften the cervix overnight, and by 7:15 a.m., February 22, 2002, vaginal examination revealed the cervix at 1-2 centimeters dilation, effacement at 90 percent, and the fetus at station -1. Cervidil was removed; at 7:40 a.m., the membranes spontaneously ruptured, with clear fluid noted; and Pitocin was started to augment labor. Fetal monitoring contained to reveal a reassuring fetal heart rate. Mrs. Mustafa's labor rapidly progressed and by 8:30 a.m., vaginal examination revealed the cervix at 5 centimeters,3 effacement complete and the fetus at station 0, and by 9:30 a.m., vaginal examination revealed complete dilation and effacement, and the fetus at station +2. Late decelerations were also noted at 9:30 a.m., but fetal heart rate was otherwise reassuring. Dr. Bray was paged at 9:32 a.m., and returned the page at 9:39 a.m. At the time, Dr. Bray was notified of Mrs. Mustafa's status and requested that the patient start pushing. However, due to the low station of the fetus, staff requested Dr. Bray's presence for pushing, and Dr. Bray stated she would be bedside in approximately 10 minutes. Thereafter, at 9:58 a.m., further decels were noted, and Pitocin was stopped. At 9:59 a.m., Dr. Bray was noted at bedside, oxygen was applied, fluid bolus started, and fetal heart rate decels to 60 beats per minute were documented. Thereafter, at 10:03 a.m., Mrs. Mustafa was pushing, complaining of pain when abdomen palpated, and fetal heart rate in the 50-beat per minute range was noted. Then, at 10:07 a.m., fetal heart rate in the 50s was noted, with brief accelerations to the 110-beat per minute range, and Dr. Bray requested a Kiwi vacuum. At 10:09 a.m., Kiwi vacuum-assisted delivery, with patient pushing, proved unsuccessful, and fetal heart rate was noted in the 110-beat per minute range, with deceleration back to the 60-beat per minute range. At 10:11 a.m., Dr. Bray requested fundal pressure, with patient pushing, but again Kiwi vacuum-assisted delivery was unsuccessful, despite three attempts. Medela vacuum was called for and at 10:17 a.m., two attempts at delivery with the Medela vacuum and fundal pressure proved unsuccessful. Then, at 10:19 a.m., with fetal heart rate remaining in the 60-beat per minute range, a stat cesarean section was called for non-reassuring fetal heart rate and suspected uterine rupture. At 10:22 a.m., Mrs. Mustafa was taken to the operating room, where she was admitted at 10:25 a.m.; surgery started at 10:30 a.m., at which time uterine rupture was confirmed; and Eman was delivered at 10:32 a.m., with Apgar scores of 1, 3, and 6, at one, five, and ten minutes respectively.4 According to the medical records, Eman required resuscitation at birth, with tracheal intubation, IPPV, and cardiac massage, and was then transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICA), where she developed spontaneous respirations, and within two to three hours was weaned from the ventilator. Eman's subsequent newborn course was without incident or evidence of residual effects of birth trauma, and she was discharged with her mother on February 25, 2002. Eman's Discharge Summary included the following observations: PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: A term female infant, weight 3329 grams, length 51 cm, and hip circumference 32 cm. Temperature 97.3, heart rate 158, respiratory rate 62, blood pressure 51/48. HEENT: Normocephalic. Eyes examined at discharge: Pupils were reactive and the red reflex seen. No nasal flaring. Neck supple. Lungs: No retractions. Good air entry. Heart regular rate and rhythm. No murmur. Abdomen soft, no masses, three-vessel cord. Genitalia: Female. Extremities: Moving all limbs, hips stable. No rashes. Neurological: Good tone. INITIAL IMPRESSION: Term female infant. Perinatal depression. Maternal uterine rupture. Respiratory distress. At once (STAT) cesarean section. INITIAL TREATMENT: NICU admission. Pulse oximetry monitoring. Conventional mechanical ventilation. Nothing by mouth. Intravenous fluids. Sepsis workup. Antibiotics. Chest x-ray. PROGRESS: Respiratory: The infant was extubated and weaned to room air within approximately two to three hours of admission. Initial chest x-ray was not significant. Rule out sepsis: The infant was treated with antibiotics; namely, ampicillin and gentamicin for 48 hours. These were discontinued when the cultures remained negative. Fluids and electrolytes: On admission, the infant was given early intravenous fluids, approximately 24 to 48 hours enteral feeds were begun and increased progressively. At the present time the infant is breastfeeding only. She is voiding well, passing stools. Neurological: The infant has good tone and good reflexes, no clonus, and appears to be neurologically normal. SUMMARY: This is a term female infant who was delivered after having maternal uterine rupture. The infant did require neonatal resuscitation but recovered very quickly. At the present time the infant is doing well and feeding well. FINAL DIAGNOSIS: Term female infant. Cesarean section. Perinatal depression. Rule out sepsis. Respiratory distress. Eman's subsequent development Eman's early development was apparently without significant concern until approximately 19 months of age, when she was referred by her pediatrician (Issaam Albanna, M.D.) to Jose Ferreira, M.D., a physician board-certified in neurophysiology and neurology with special qualification in child neurology, for evaluation concerning "some gait disturbance with falling and some coordination problems." Pertinent to this case, Dr. Ferreira reported the results of his initial evaluation of October 6, 2003, as follows: I had the pleasure of seeing Eman for initial evaluation today accompanied by her mother and aunt. The main concern is some gait disturbance with falling and some coordination problems. They report that she started walking somewhat late at 14-15 months and was doing better initially and then seems to be falling more frequently recently and will walk on her toes at times. There is also some deficits with the coordination where she seems to be "clumsy" at times, hands "clinched" frequently and her muscles "give out" on her apparently more frequently then expected for age. She has been developing speech with about 5 words at this point. She tends to drool frequently She is potty training currently as she starts to talk with 5-6 words vocabulary . . . . PAST MEDICAL HISTORY: She was born at full term pregnancy. Birth weight was 7 lb 8 ounces. There was some traumatic delivery as she describes it with uterine rupture and labor requiring a stat cesarean section. She went home with her mother. There was no other problems noted initially. * * * GENERAL PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: HC: 45 cm (5th percentile) WT: 23 lb HR: 90 and regular. HEENT: Unremarkable. Normocephalic. . . . The extremities have full range of motion with no edema, deformities or joint tenderness. The midline back shows no midline defects and no point tenderness to percussion. The skin shows no neurocutaneous findings of significance and there was no dysmorphic features. NEUROLOGICAL EXAMINATION: Shows she was alert. She was initially showing significant stranger anxiety and then was more comfortable with the examiner as the interview took place. She was able to follow some simple commands from her mother. She did not say any words during the examination. The cranial nerve examination revealed full extraocular movements and visual fields full to confrontation. The pupils were equal and reactive. The funduscopic exam showed bilateral red reflex. The face is symmetric and the tongue midline with no fasciculations. There was some degree of drooling noted. Her motor exam shows she had no focal weakness. There is no significant increased resistance to pass of motion other than possibly the right upper extremities. She tended to maintain her hands fisted with some cortical thumbs at times specially when she walked. The gait shows she was somewhat stooped forward to a mild degree but otherwise wide based appropriate for age. She tended to fall occasionally. There was no asymmetry of the use of her extremities otherwise except that she tended to hold the right arm more flexed and the right hand more frequently closed and pronated. The deep tendon reflexes showed 2+. There is no sustained ankle clonus. The plantar responses were extensor bilaterally. Gait and coordination showed there was no tremors and no ataxia [failure of musculature coordination]5 of significance other than the tendency to fall which was somewhat limited coordination. The plantar responses were extensor bilaterally. IMPRESSION: 1. Gait disturbance associated with a mild degree of incoordination with her age with some mild upper motor neuron dysfunction signs as described above in the neurological examination. * * * RECOMMENDATIONS: She will have an MRI of the brain without contrast. She will have a metabolic screening including serum amino acids, ammonia levels, thyroid functions studies, total carnitine levels, ammonia and lactate and CPK levels. She will be seen for follow up here in approximately one and a half to two months or earlier if there is any acute changes. Physical and occupational therapy may be recommended at this point . . . . (Petitioners' Exhibit 2). Eman was reevaluated by Dr. Ferreira on December 15, 2003, and he reported the results of that visit, as follows: I had the pleasure of seeing Eman for follow up today accompanied by her parents. As you know, she has a history of difficulties with her gait and some developmental delay and coordination difficulties. She had an MRI of the brain, which was normal with the exception of some sinusitis. She also had a metabolic screen and had elevated T4[,] and T3 and TSH was normal. She continues having difficulties with her gait and coordination. She has had some drooling at times. Her speech has been somewhat delayed and she has approximately 10-15 word vocabulary but difficult to understand and does not show any signs to suggest regression. She has been sleeping and eating well. * * * HEENT: Unremarkable. . . . The extremities had full range of motion and no edema. NEUROLOGICAL EXAMINATION: She was alert and friendly. She was cooperative. Cranial nerve exam revealed full extraocular movements and visual fields grossly full to confrontation. The pupils are equal and reactive. The funduscopic exam shows bilateral red reflex. The face is symmetric and the tongue was midline with no fasciculations. The motor exams shows she had some difficulties with fine motor coordination. She did not have a good pincer grasp and she tended to keep her hands mostly in a pronated position and somewhat flexed at the elbow and especially when she walked. Her muscle tone was minimally increased in all extremities. Deep tendon reflexes were 2+/2+. The plantar responses were extensor bilaterally. Her gait was minimally spastic with a slightly wide base. She tended to walk somewhat stood forward to a mild degree. When she was sitting she also had some mild degree of truncal ataxia. IMPRESSION: History of developmental disorder with mild speech and language delay as well as some drooling. Mild degree of spasticity with gait disturbance. There is history of sinusitis. RECOMMENDATIONS: As her MRI did not show any intracranial pathology an EEG will be done to evaluate for any encephalopathic changes. She was referred to occupational, speech and physical therapy. The thyroid function (T4 was mildly elevated) will be repeated. She will be seen for follow up here in three to four months or earlier if there is any acute changes . . . . (Petitioners' Exhibit 2). Eman was last evaluated by Dr. Ferreira on February 11, 2004, and he reported the results of that visit, as follows: I had the pleasure of seeing Eman for follow up today accompanied by her parents for a history of gait disturbance with some developmental delay and coordination difficulties. She had an EEG done today which showed a mild abnormality with the right occipital rhythm being slightly lower voltage than the left. The EEG was otherwise normal. She is now in physical, occupational and speech therapy. This just started so it is difficult to say whether or not improvement has been noted. Her parents feel however that she has improved. She is learning new words and her parents feel that she is steadily showing improvement. She is falling still but is moving around better than she has previously. They also feel her drooling has improved. She is eating and sleeping well and they have no new concerns today. * * * HEENT: Unremarkable. . . . Extremities had full range of motion. NEUROLOGICAL EXAMINATION: She is awake and alert. She is very cooperative and friendly. She was speaking at times and was smiling. Cranial nerve and motor exams were unchanged from the last evaluation. Her pincer grasp was still not as good as expected for her age and she tended to keep her hands pronated when walking. Her muscle tone was still mildly increased. Deep tendon reflexes were 2+ and she was walking with a slightly wide based gait for age. She was sitting without assistance for short periods of time today but continued with a mild degree of truncal ataxia. RECOMMENDATIONS: The thyroid panel will be repeated as it was requested at the last visit but unable to be completed.[6] She will continue in the therapies . . . . (Petitioners' Exhibit 2). According to Dr. Ferreira, as of the last time he saw Eman (February 11, 2004) she was still showing some neurologic deficits, which he described as a mild degree of spasticity (increased muscle tone), with gait disturbance; mild upper motor dysfunction, with a less than age-appropriate pincer grasp and tendency to pronate her hands when walking; and a mild speech and language delay. (See Dr. Ferreira's reports of December 15, 2003, and February 11, 2004, supra, and Petitioners' Exhibit 2, pages 15-21, 28-32, and 42). As for permanency, Dr. Ferreira declined (given the limited contact he had with Eman) to offer an opinion regarding the significance of any dysfunction that might persist. Moreover, Dr. Ferreira, who was not familiar with Eman's birth records or those medical records that predated his evaluation of October 6, 2003, offered no opinion, within a reasonable degree of medical certainty, as to the likely etiology of Eman's neurologic defects (i.e., whether they resulted from brain injury caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring during labor delivery or resuscitation, or another etiology) or whether Eman suffered any mental impairment. Subsequent neurologic evaluations On February 23, 2005, Eman was, at NICA's request, evaluated by Michael Duchowny, M.D., a pediatric neurologist associated with Miami Children's Hospital. Dr. Duchowny reported the results of his evaluation, as follows: PRE-AND PERINATAL HISTORY: Eman was born in Tampa at University Hospital after a full term gestation. Her birth weight was 7 pounds 9 ounces, and she remained in the nursery for three days. Eman walked at eighteen months and said single words at two years. She is just beginning toilet training. She is fully immunized and has no known allergies. She has never undergone surgery and has not been hospitalized after birth. PHYSICAL EXAMINATION reveals an alert, well- developed and well-nourished, cooperative 3- year-old girl. Eman weighs 36 pounds and is 45 inches tall. The skin is warm and moist. There are no neurocutaneous stigmata . . . The spine is straight. The head circumference measures 45.8 centimeters, which is below the 3rd percentile for age. There are no cranial or facial anomalies or asymmetries. The neck is supple without masses, thyromegaly or adenopathy. The cardiovascular examination is unremarkable, and the lung fields are clear. There is no palpable abdominal organomegaly. Peripheral pulses are 2+ and symmetric. Eman's NEUROLOGIC EXAMINATION reveals her to be socially interactive and cooperative. She has a good attention span and is quite inquisitive. She smiles frequently. She is able to understand commands and completes them very clearly. She is quite interactive playing games. She knows body parts. She is behaviorally intact. Cranial nerve examinations reveal full visual fields to confrontation testing. The pupils are 3mm and briskly reactive to direct and consensually presented light. There are full and conjugate extraocular movements. Funduscopic examination is unremarkable with well-defined optic disc margins. There are no significant facial asymmetries. The tongue movements are poorly coordinated. Drooling is noted intermittently. Motor examination reveals static hypotonia with a mild increase in tone in all extremities. There are no contractures and there is full range of motion in all joints. The gait is complex with the left heel being slightly elevated with a mild degree of circumduction at the hips and internal rotation at the ankles. Deep tendon reflexes are 1+ in the upper extremities, 3+ at the knees, and 1+ at the ankles. Plantar responses are downgoing. Sensory examination is intact to withdrawal of all extremities to stimulation. Neurovascular examination reveals no cervical, cranial or ocular bruits and no temperature or pulse asymmetries. (Petitioners' Exhibit 3). Based on his neurologic evaluation and review of the medical records, Dr. Duchowny was of the opinion that Eman's impairments were most likely developmentally based (the product of atypical brain development), as opposed to birth trauma (brain injury caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery or resuscitation). In so concluding, Dr. Duchowny noted that following delivery, Eman's hospital course was inconsistent with traumatic brain damage (there being an absence of significant prolonged respiratory depression, an absence of systemic organ involvement, and an absence of seizure activity), and her MRI scan of November 13, 2003, was normal. Dr. Duchowny also noted that Eman's presentation on February 23, 2005, with a pattern of immature muscle control and expressive language delay, was typical of children with developmental disabilities, as opposed to disabilities associated with birth trauma. Finally, Dr. Duchowny was of the opinion that Eman's expressive language delay was mild to moderate, and her motor disability was moderate, as opposed to substantial, and that her condition was likely to improve with time. (Petitioners' Exhibit 4; Respondent's Exhibit 1). Subsequently, on March 11, 2005, Eman was, at University Community Hospital's request, evaluated by S. Parrish Winesett, M.D. a physician board-certified in pediatrics and neurology with special qualification in child neurology. Dr. Winesett reported the results of his evaluation, as follows: PHYSICAL EXAMINATION: General: Shows a young lady who is alert, who is quite interactive. She smiles easily. She has no obvious dysmorphic features. She has normally placed eyes, ears, nose, philtrum and mouth. Her mental status is that she said single words during my exam. I did not really hear her say sentences. She was rather quiet for the most part. She seemed to follow directions well. Cranial nerve exam showed her pupils were equal and responsive to light. She seemed to have full visual fields. Her extraocular eye movements were intact. Range of motion in all directions was full. Face was symmetrical with good facial movements in both the upper and lower face. Tongue was midline without any fasiculations. Palate raised symmetrically. She shrugged her shoulders will. Motor exam seemed to show that she was strong in all four extremities. I could not get her to fully resist me and give her full effort in trying to resist me, but she did seem to be fairly strong in what resistance I could elicit. She does not seem to have any obvious atrophy of the muscles. She seemed to have normal tone and bulk. In particular, I did not detect any asymmetry of tone nor did I detect any hypertonia. Reflexes in the upper extremities were normal in the biceps, brachial radialis and triceps. In the lower extremities, she did not have any pathologic increase in reflexes, but her patella and ankle reflexes were brisk. Her motor coordination showed that in reaching with both hands, she seemed to be somewhat jerky and has a very slow approach in reaching for my tape measure. She did not seem to be particularly adept at pushing the buttons and pulling the tape as I would expect a child of three to be. She seemed to be very slow. Finger tapping also seemed to be slow and somewhat labored. She did not diminish her amplitude as she tapped. Sensation was not extensively tested, but she did seem to acknowledge being touched in all four extremities in a normal fashion. Her gait was clearly abnormal. Her hands while sitting never showed any adduction of the thumbs within the palms. When she walked, she immediately assumed a posture in which she pulled her arms close to her side, bent her elbows and brought her thumbs within her palm. This was seen each time she started to walk. She did not circumduct her legs but instead seemed to drag her lower extremities and have an almost slapping motion of her feet as she pulled her legs forward. She did not particularly scissor while she was walking. She did not space out her gait while she was walking. * * * Review of the medical records provided to me of both the child, as well as the mother . . . showed the following. The child was born on February 22, 2002 as the product of a 41 week pregnancy. There was an attempted vaginal birth after previous C-section. At approximately 10:02, the fetal heart rate was noticed to be decelerating. The obstetrician was called at that time. The child had heart deceleration during this period that was noted in the nurses notes to be down in the 50's and noted in the physician's notes to be in the 70's. The child was then taken to the operating room where the child was born at approximately 10:32. The child, at that time, was handed over to the neonatal resuscitation team who started resuscitation effort and gave the child Apgar scores of 1, 3 and 6 at 1, 5 and 10 minutes. The patient had been intubated by the 3rd Apgar score. The child was taken back to the NICU where at 10:45, a blood gas was performed which showed a pH of 7.31, a PC02 of 22 and a base excess of -18. The child recovered quite quickly and was extubated in approximately two hours. Review of the operating notes showed that there was reported 200 to 300 cc of blood in the uterus and that there was a uterine rupture noted by the physicians at the operation. The child was discharged from the NICU on February 25, 2002 with the neurological exam reported to be normal. The child has subsequently been seen by Dr. Jose Ferriera for the same complaints that they presented to me with. He has done an MRI which was read as normal by the Tampa Children's Hospital radiologist. Thyroid function tests were ordered and showed a mild elevation of T4. . . . A speech therapy evaluation including the Rossetti Infant Toddler Language Scale showed that she scored at the 15 month range at the age of 23 months for her speech skills. There was apparently some splintering of the scoring but mostly within the 15 to 18 month range. An auditory comprehension subtest, she scores at 23 months which is normal. She is also noted to have some oral motor speech difficulties. Physical and occupational therapy evaluations were reviewed but not as significantly to the data. IMPRESSION: Eman is a young lady who is presenting with predominantly problems in gait disturbance, as well as speech problems. Many of her speech problems could be related to problems in the coordination of her speech. There is a mild increase in reflexes in the lower extremities; however, it does not appear to be a significant degree of hypertonia. Overall, this child appears to have predominant problems with dyscoordination. This is not a typical presentation for a neonatal hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy syndrome. In addition, the fact that the child recovered so quickly and was extubated within two hours and was discharged within two days makes it highly unlikely that the hypoxia suffered at birth is the cause of the neurologic syndrome. (Petitioners' Exhibit 3). Based on his neurologic evaluation and review of the medical records, Dr. Winesett was of the opinion that, while of unknown etiology, it was unlikely Eman's neurologic problems were related to birth trauma. Dr. Winesett also described Eman's motor difficulties as moderate, as opposed to substantial, and offered no opinion regarding her cognitive function. (Petitioner's Exhibit 3, pages 18, 19, 22-26, and 36). Coverage under the Plan Pertinent to this case, coverage is afforded by the Plan for infants who suffer a "birth-related neurological injury," defined as an "injury to the brain . . . caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate postdelivery period in a hospital, which renders the infant permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired."7 § 766.302(2), Fla. Stat. See also §§ 766.309(1) and 766.31(1), Fla. Stat. The etiology and significance of Eman's impairments Here, among the physicians who have examined Eman, and who were particularly qualified to address the etiology and significance of her impairments, none concluded that Eman's impairments most likely resulted from brain injury caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitating in the immediate postdelivery period in the hospital, or that Eman was permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired. See, e.g., Wausau Insurance Company v. Tillman, 765 So. 2d 123, 124 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000)("Because of the medical conditions which the claimant alleged had resulted from the workplace incident were not readily observable, he was obliged to present expert medical evidence establishing that causal connection."); Ackley v. General Parcel Service, 646 So. 2d 242 (Fla. 1st DCA 1995)(determining cause of psychiatric illness is essentially a medical question, requiring expert medical evidence); Thomas v. Salvation Army, 562 So. 2d 746, 749 (Fla. 1st DCA 1990)("In evaluating medical evidence, a judge of compensation claims may not reject uncontroverted medical testimony without a reasonable explanation."). Therefore, the proof fails to support the conclusion that Eman suffered a "birth-related neurological injury," as required for coverage under the Plan. The notice provisions of the Plan Given that Eman did not suffer an injury compensable under the Plan, it is unnecessary to address whether the healthcare providers complied with the notice provisions of the Plan. See, e.g., Galen of Florida, Inc. v. Braniff, 696 So. 2d 308, 309 (Fla. 1997)("[A]s a condition precedent to invoking the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan as a patient's exclusive remedy, healthcare providers must, when practicable, give their obstetrical patients notice of their participation in the plan a reasonable time prior to delivery."); O'Leary v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, 757 So. 2d 624, 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)("We recognize that lack of proper notice does not affect a claimant's ability to obtain compensation from the Plan. However, a healthprovider who disputes a plaintiff's assertion of inadequate notice is raising the issue of whether a claim can only be compensated under the plan.").
