The Issue The issue in this case is whether Reshnaya E. Francois suffered a birth-related injury as defined by section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes, for which compensation should be awarded under the Plan.
Findings Of Fact Reshnaya E. Francois was born on January 31, 2016, at Broward Health, in Coral Springs, Florida. Reshnaya weighed in excess of 2,500 grams at birth. The circumstances of the labor, delivery, and birth of the minor child are reflected in the medical records of Broward Health submitted with the Petition. At all times material, both Broward Health and Dr. Wajid were active members under NICA pursuant to sections 766.302(6) and (7). Reshnaya was delivered by Dr. Wajid, who was a NICA- participating physician, on January 31, 2016. Petitioners contend that Reshnaya suffered a birth- related neurological injury and seek compensation under the Plan. Respondent contends that Reshnaya has not suffered a birth- related neurological injury as defined by section 766.302(2). In order for a claim to be compensable under the Plan, certain statutory requisites must be met. Section 766.309 provides: The Administrative Law Judge shall make the following determinations based upon all available evidence: Whether the injury claimed is a birth- related neurological injury. If the claimant has demonstrated, to the satisfaction of the Administrative Law Judge, that the infant has sustained a brain or spinal cord injury caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury and that the infant was thereby rendered permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired, a rebuttable presumption shall arise that the injury is a birth-related neurological injury as defined in § 766.302(2). Whether obstetrical services were delivered by a participating physician in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate postdelivery period in a hospital; or by a certified nurse midwife in a teaching hospital supervised by a participating physician in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate postdelivery period in a hospital. How much compensation, if any, is awardable pursuant to § 766.31. If the Administrative Law Judge determines that the injury alleged is not a birth-related neurological injury or that obstetrical services were not delivered by a participating physician at birth, she or he shall enter an order . . . . The term “birth-related neurological injury” is defined in Section 766.302(2), Florida Statutes, as: . . . injury to the brain or spinal cord of a live infant weighing at least 2,500 grams for a single gestation or, in the case of a multiple gestation, a live infant weighing at least 2,000 grams at birth 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. This definition shall apply to live births only and shall not include disability or death caused by genetic or congenital abnormality. (Emphasis added). In the instant case, NICA has retained Donald Willis, M.D. (Dr. Willis), as its medical expert specializing in maternal-fetal medicine and pediatric neurology. Upon examination of the pertinent medical records, Dr. Willis opined: The newborn was not depressed. Apgar scores were 8/8. Decreased movement of the right arm was noted. The baby was taken to the Mother Baby Unit and admission exam described the baby as alert and active. The baby had an Erb’s palsy or Brachial Plexus injury of the right arm. Clinical appearance of the baby suggested Down syndrome. Chromosome analysis was done for clinical features suggestive of Down syndrome and this genetic abnormality was confirmed. Chromosome analysis was consistent with 47, XX+21 (Down syndrome). Dr. Willis’s medical Report is attached to his Affidavit. His Affidavit reflects his ultimate opinion that: In summary: Delivery was complicated by a mild shoulder dystocia and resulting Erb’s palsy. There was no evidence of injury to the spinal cord. The newborn was not depressed. Apgar scores were 8/9. Chromosome analysis was consistent with Down syndrome. There was no apparent obstetrical event that resulted in loss of oxygen or mechanical trauma to the baby’s brain or spinal cord during labor, delivery or the immediate post delivery period. The baby has a genetic or chromosome abnormality, Down syndrome. A review of the file in this case reveals that there have been no expert opinions filed that are contrary to the opinion of Dr. Willis. The opinion of Dr. Willis that Reshnaya did not suffer an obstetrical event that resulted in loss of oxygen or mechanical trauma to the baby’s brain or spinal cord during labor, delivery, or the immediate post-delivery period is credited. In the instant case, NICA has retained Michael S. Duchowny, M.D. (Dr. Duchowny), as its medical expert in pediatric neurology. Upon examination of the child and the pertinent medical records, Dr. Duchowny opined: In summary, Reshnaya’s examination today reveals findings consistent with Down syndrome including multiple dysmorphic features, hypotonia, and hyporeflexia. She has minimal weakness at the right shoulder girdle and her delayed motor milestones are likely related to her underlying genetic disorder. There are no focal or lateralizing features suggesting a structural brain injury. Dr. Duchowny’s medical report is attached to his Affidavit. His Affidavit reflects his ultimate opinion that: Neither the findings on today’s evaluation nor the medical record review indicate that Reshnaya has either a substantial mental or motor impairment acquired in the course of labor or delivery. I believe that her present neurological disability is more likely related to Downs syndrome. For this reason, I am not recommending that Reshnaya be considered for compensation within the NICA program. A review of the file in this case reveals that there have been no expert opinions filed that are contrary to the opinion of Dr. Duchowny. The opinion of Dr. Duchowny that Reshnaya did not suffer a substantial mental or motor impairment acquired in the course of labor or delivery is credited.
The Issue At issue in this proceeding is whether Morgan Wilson, a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary findings Petitioners, Tracie Wilson and James Ray Wilson, are the natural parents and guardians of Morgan Wilson. Morgan was born a live infant on December 12, 2000, at Baptist Medical Center, a hospital located in Jacksonville, Florida, and her birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. The physician providing obstetrical services at Morgan's birth was Martin Garcia, 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. Morgan's birth At or about 7:29 a.m., December 12, 2000, Mrs. Wilson (with an estimated date of delivery of December 23, 2000, and the fetus at 38 3/7 weeks gestation) presented to Baptist Medical Center, in labor. At the time, Mrs. Wilson's membranes were noted as intact, and mild to moderate uterine contractions were noted at a frequency of 2-4 minutes. Fetal monitoring revealed a reassuring fetal heart rate, with a baseline of 150-160 beats per minute, and the presence of fetal movement. At 9:45 a.m., Mrs. Wilson's membranes were artificially ruptured, with meconium stained amniotic fluid noted. At the time, vaginal examination revealed the cervix at 4 centimeters, effacement complete, and the fetus at 0 station. Mrs. Wilson's labor progressed, and at 7:29 p.m., Morgan was delivered, with vacuum assistance. According to the Admission Summary, Morgan was suctioned on the perineum, and, before she could be moved to the warmer, the "[c]ord clamp loosened with small amount of blood loss prior to reclamping." The Admission Summary further reveals that Morgan was "floppy and required bag mask ventilation x3 minutes, then blowby oxygen for 3 minutes." Apgar scores were noted as 1 and 8, at one and five minutes,2 and umbilical cord pH was reported as normal (7.28). Morgan was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) for "eval[uation] after blood loss." There, her blood count (with a hematocrit of 46 percent) was reported as normal or, stated otherwise, without evidence of a clinically significant blood loss due to the loosening of the clamp. Following two hours of observation, Morgan was transferred to the normal newborn nursery; however, at 4:20 p.m., December 13, 2000, she was readmitted to the neonatal intensive care unit. The reason for admission was stated in the Admission Summary, as follows: . . . Indications for transfer included 38 week WF with renal vein thrombosis and left middle cerebral artery stroke. Neonatology consulted midafternoon today secondary to hematuria. On exam, Dr. Cuevas noted asymmetry of pupils, with right more dilated and less responsive then left. Also noted to have torticollis, preferring to keep head turned to left. Also noted to have palpable mass in left abdomen. Renal ultrasound revealed renal vein thrombosis. HUS showed some echogenecity so Head CT done revealing left middle cerebral artery stroke. Hct this am 41. Baby then admitted to NICU for further care. Neurology and hematology consulted as well as nephrology. Impressions on admission included: possible coaguloathy; left middle cerebral artery stroke; renal vein thrombosis; and torticollis. Morgan remained at Baptist Medical Center until December 29, 2000, when she was discharged to her parents' care. Morgan's Discharge Summary noted the following active diagnoses: possible coagulopathy; anemia; left middle cerebral artery stroke; renal vein thrombosis; and torticollis. 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 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, indisputably, the record demonstrates that Morgan suffered an injury to the brain (following a stroke in the territory of the left middle cerebral artery, likely due to arterial occlusion or superior saggital sinus thrombosis). What is disputed, is whether the proof demonstrates, more likely than not, that such injury occurred "in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation," and whether any such injury rendered Morgan "permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired." The timing of, and the neurologic consequences that followed, Morgan's brain injury To address whether Morgan's brain injury occurred "in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation," and whether such injury rendered Morgan "permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired," Petitioners offered medical records relating to Mrs. Wilson's antepartum course, as well as those associated with Morgan's birth and subsequent development. Additionally, Mrs. Wilson testified on her own behalf, and Respondent offered the deposition testimony of Dr. Donald Willis, a physician board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology, as well as maternal-fetal medicine, and Dr. Michael Duchowny, a physician board-certified in pediatrics, neurology with special competence in child neurology, electroencephalography, and neurophysiology.3 As for the timing of Morgan's injury, it was Dr. Willis' opinion that the medical records did not reveal any obstetrical event that would account for Morgan's injury. In so concluding, Dr. Willis noted that fetal monitoring (which began on admission and continued until 7:28 p.m., one minute prior to delivery) did not reveal evidence of fetal compromise or a clinically significant event that would account for Morgan's injury, that Morgan's 5-minute Apgar score was normal, her umbilical cord pH was normal, and her hematocrit on initial admission to the neonatal intensive care unit was normal. Consequently, Dr. Willis concluded that Morgan's injury did not occur during labor, delivery, or resuscitation. Also speaking to the timing of Morgan's injury was Dr. Duchowny who, based on his review of the medical records, shared Dr. Willis' opinion that there was no evident problem during labor and delivery, and further opined that Morgan's injury likely occurred prior to labor. In concluding that Morgan's injury likely predated the onset of labor, Dr. Duchowny noted that Morgan's CT scan on the day after birth clearly revealed a stroke in the territory of the left middle cerebral artery, and that it would take at least 72 hours for a stroke to be revealed so clearly on a CT scan. Apart from the timing of Morgan's brain injury, Dr. Duchowny also expressed his opinions, based on his examination of November 6, 2001, regarding the neurologic consequences that followed Morgan's injury. Dr. Duchowny reported the results of Morgan's neurology evaluation, as follows: PHYSICAL EXAMINATION reveals an alert, well developed and well nourished 10 1/2 month old white female. The skin is warm and moist. There are no cutaneous stigmata or dysmorphic features. The hair is light blonde, fine and of normal texture. Morgan weighs 18-pounds, 10-ounces. Her head circumference measures 45.6 cm, which is at the 60th percentile for age matched controls. There are no dysraphic features. The neck is supple without masses, thyromegaly or adenopathy. The cardiovascular, respiratory and abdominal examinations are normal. NEUROLOGIC EXAMINATION reveals an alert infant who is socially oriented. She has good central gaze fixation, conjugate following and normal ocular fundi. The pupils are 3 mm and react briskly to direct and consensually presented light. There is blink to threat from both directions. There are no facial asymmetries. The tongue and palate move well, and there is no drooling. Motor examination reveals an obvious asymmetry of posturing and movement. The left side is positioned normally and tends to grasp for objects. The right upper and lower extremity have diminished movement in comparison to the left and there is a tendency for the left hand to cross the midline for all manual tasks. She will not grasp for an offered cube with her right hand. In contrast, the left hand will grasp for a cube and display the beginnings of individual finger movements. The thumb on the right hand is fisted. The muscle, bulk and tone appears symmetric. Deep tendon reflexes are 2+ at the biceps and knees. Both plantare responses are mildly extensor. On pull-to-sit there is an asymmetry of the upper extremity, with relatively greater pull on the left side. The neck tone is good. There are no adventitious movements. Sensory examination is intact to withdrawal of all extremities to touch. The neurovascular examination via the anterior fontanelle is unremarkable. In SUMMARY, Morgan's neurologic examination reveals a mild to moderate motor asymmetry of the right side affecting primarily upper extremity, but with some lower extremity involvement as well. In contrast, Morgan's cognitive status appeared well preserved for age and she is certainly developing on schedule with regard to her linguistic milestones. I suspect that Morgan's motor function will continue to improve, as she is working actively in therapy. In sum, it was Dr. Duchowny's opinion that Morgan evidenced neither a permanent and substantial physical impairment nor a permanent and substantial mental impairment. In contrast to the proof offered by Respondent, Petitioners offered the lay testimony of Mrs. Wilson, which was legally insufficient to support a finding regarding the timing of Morgan's brain injury, and which failed to support a conclusion that Morgan was permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired. See, e.g., Vero Beach Care Center v. Ricks, 476 So. 2d 262, 264 (Fla. 1st DCA 1985)("[L]ay testimony is legally insufficient to support a finding of causation where the medical condition involved is not readily observable.") Consequently, since the opinions of Dr. Willis and Dr. Duchowny are logical, and consistent with the medical records, it must be resolved that, more likely than not, Morgan's brain injury did not occur "in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation," and that Morgan's injury did not render her "permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired." 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 this proceeding is whether Erika Calle, a minor, suffered an injury for which compensation should be awarded under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
Findings Of Fact Coverage under the Plan Pertinent to this case, coverage is afforded under the Plan when the claimant demonstrates, 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." Sections 766.302(2) and 766.309(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Here, Erika's physical presentation is dispositive of the claim and it is unnecessary to address her mental presentation, or the timing or cause of her condition. Erika's physical presentation To address Erika's present physical status, the parties offered the opinions of Trevor Resnick, M.D., a pediatric neurologist; Michael Duchowny, M.D., a pediatric neurologist; and Marilyn Lerman Taché, a speech-language pathologist.1 Those opinions are grossly consistent and conclude that Erika evidences no motor impairment. Consequently, it must be resolved that Erika is not "permanently and substantially . . . physically impaired," as required for coverage under the Plan.
