The Issue At issue is whether Jhaleil Dixon, a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (Plan).
Findings Of Fact Stipulated facts Rosina Dixon is the natural mother and guardian of Jhaleil Dixon, a minor. Jhaleil was born a live infant on February 17, 2004, at Shands Medical Center, a hospital located in Jacksonville, Florida, and his birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. 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 or spinal cord . . . 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. The etiology of Jhaleil's impairments To address the likely etiology of Jhaleil's impairments, Ms. Dixon testified on her own behalf, and offered the testimony of Page Lutchman. In contrast, NICA offered the testimony of Donald Willis, M.D., a physician board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology, and maternal-fetal medicine, together with Dr. Willis' reports and the medical records related to Jhaleil's birth. Based on Dr. Willis' review of the medical records, it was his opinion that, within a reasonable degree of medical probability, Jhaleil did not suffer an injury to his brain or spinal cord caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation. In so concluding, Dr. Willis noted that Apgar scores were 3 and 7, at one and five minutes, respectively; that while depressed at birth, Jhaleil responded quickly to minimal resuscitation; umbilical cord blood gas was normal, with pH of 7.19 and base excess of -3.1; neurologic consultation was consistent with bilateral brachial plexus injury, not an injury to the brain or spinal cord; MRI of the spine on day 3 of life was negative; and, there being no evidence of multisystem system involvement (i.e., seizures, renal failure), Jhaleil's newborn stay was not otherwise consistent with injury to the brain or spinal cord. The opinions of Dr. Willis are rationally based, supported by the record, and credible. Consequently, it must be resolved that, more likely than not, Jhaleil's impairments were not the result of a brain or spinal cord injury caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation. See 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."); Ackley v. General Parcel Service, 646 So. 2d 242, 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)("The determination of the cause of a non-observable medical condition, such as a psychiatric illness, is essentially a medical question."); 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 Jhaleil suffered a "birth-related neurological injury," as required for coverage under the Plan.
The Issue At issue is weather Tyler Anthony Carter, a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (Plan).
Findings Of Fact Stipulated facts Victoria Knight Carter and Roy Carter are the natural parents of Tyler Anthony Carter, a minor. Tyler was born a live infant on February 7, 2005, at North Shore Medical Center, a licensed hospital located in Miami, Florida, and his birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. Obstetrical services were delivered at Tyler's birth by Ramon Hechavarria, 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 or spinal cord . . . 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. Here, the proof demonstrated that Tyler's delivery was complicated by a shoulder dystocia, which caused a brachial plexus injury, that resulted in a weakness (an Erb's palsy) in the left upper extremity. Otherwise, Tyler was not shown to suffer any injury at birth. To address the nature and significance of Tyler's injury, NICA offered the testimony of Michael Duchowny, M.D., a physician board-certified in pediatrics, neurology with special competence in child neurology, and clinical neurophysiology.1 (Respondent's Exhibit 1, deposition of Dr. Duchowny). Dr. Duchowny evaluated Tyler on October 17, 2007, and reported the results of his physical and neurological evaluation, as follows: PHYSICAL EXAMINATION reveals an alert, cooperative 2 1/2-year-old, well-developed and well-nourished toddler. Tyler[] weighs 29 pounds. His skin is warm and moist. There are no dysmorphic features or neurocutaneous stigmata. Head circumference measures 49.2 centimeters, which is within standard percentiles for age. The fontanels are closed. There are no cranial or facial anomalies or asymmetries. The neck is supple without masses, thyromegaly or adenopathy. The cardiovascular, respiratory, and abdominal examinations are unremarkable. Tyler's NEUROLOGICAL EXAMINATION reveals an alert and sociable toddler. His speech is fluent and appropriately articulated. He maintains an age appropriate stream of attention. His social skills are appropriately developed for age. Cranial nerve examination is unremarkable. The extraocular movements are fully conjugate in all planes and the pupils are 3 mm and briskly reactive to direct and consensually presented light. A brief funduscopic examination is unremarkable. There are no significant facial asymmetries. The uvula is midline and the pharyngeal folds are symmetric. The tongue is moist and papillated. Motor examination reveals an asymmetry of the upper extremities. There is slightly diminished muscle bulk in the distal left upper extremity. Tyler is unable to raise the left arm past neutrality. He tends to posture the left arm with flexion at the elbow and wrist. Tyler cannot fully supinate the left hand. He can build a tower with using either hand and has bimanual dexterity. However, he demonstrates a consistent right hand preference. There are no fixed contractures. The deep tendon reflexes are 2+ in the lower extremities and the right upper extremity but 1+ at the [left] biceps. The sensory examination is intact to withdrawal of all extremities to stimulation. The neurovascular examination reveals no cervical, cranial or ocular bruits and no temperature or pulse asymmetries. In SUMMARY, Tyler's neurological examination reveals a mild left Erb's palsy, which was likely acquired during delivery due to traction on the brachial plexus. In contrast, there are no abnormalities referable to the right upper extremity or the lower extremities. Tyler's mental functioning is appropriate for age level. (Joint Exhibit 1, Report of Dr. Duchowny, dated October 17, 2007; Respondent's Exhibit 1, pp. 15 and 16). An Erb's palsy, as evidenced by Tyler, is a weakness of an upper extremity due to damage to the nerve roots of the left brachial plexus, a peripheral nerve injury, and does not represent an injury to the brain or spinal cord (the central nervous system). (Respondent's Exhibit 1, pp. 10 and 11).2 Moreover, the physical impairment Tyler suffers is mild, as opposed to substantial, and there is no compelling evidence of mental impairment, much less substantial mental impairment. (Respondent's Exhibit 1, pp. 8-10). Ackley v. General Parcel Service, 646 So. 2d 242, 245 (Fla. 1st DCA 1994)("The determination of the cause of a non-observable medical condition, such as a psychiatric illness, is essentially a medical question."); 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."). Consequently, while Tyler may have suffered a mechanical injury, permanent in nature (to his left brachial plexus) during the course of birth, he does not qualify for coverage under the Plan.
The Issue Whether Ashley Villarreal has suffered an injury for which compensation should be awarded under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as alleged in the claim for compensation.
Findings Of Fact Preliminary matters Ashley Villarreal (Ashley) is the natural daughter of Roy Villarreal and Carmen Luna. She was born a live infant on January 2, 1989, at Bethesda Memorial Hospital in Palm Beach County, Florida, and her birth weight was 3090 grams. The physician delivering obstetrical services during the birth of Ashley was Allen Dinnerstein, 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(7), Florida Statutes. The birth of Ashley Villarreal At or about 4:15 p.m., January 2, 1989, Carmen Luna was admitted to Bethesda Memorial Hospital. At the time, Carmen Luna was in active labor, and Ashley was post term with a gestational age of 41 weeks. Otherwise, Carmen Luna's pregnancy had been without complication. External fetal monitoring was commenced at 4:50 p.m. and indicated that the fetal heart tone was sporadically within the 60 beat per minute level, with a slow return to baseline; a level sufficient to indicate occasional fetal bradycardia and fetal distress. 1/ This situation evidenced a need for surgical intervention, and at 5:20 p.m. Carmen Luna was taken to the operating room. Anesthesia commenced at 5:25 p.m., a cesarean section surgical procedure was commenced at 5:39 p.m., and Ashley was delivered at 5:44 p.m. The operative report reflects that the following occurred during the course of the procedure: . . . a transverse incision was made into the uterus releasing meconium stained fluid. The vertex was delivered and the baby suctioned with DeLee. A loop of cord over the neck was removed and the baby then delivered completely continually being suctioned as the cord was double clamped and severed and the infant given to the neonatologist for care . . . . The delivery records likewise reflect that Ashley had a blue appearance at delivery, the presence of meconium staining, and the following resuscitation measures: "Stimulation," "Bulb Suction," "DeLee Suction," "Mech Suction" and "Whiffs Oz." When delivered, Ashley presented Apgar scores of 6 at one minute and 8 at five minutes. These scores are a numerical expression of the condition of a newborn infant, and reflect the sum points gained on assessment of the heart rate, respiratory effort, muscle tone, reflex irritability, and color, with each category being assigned a score ranging from the lowest score of 0 through a maximum score of 2. As noted, at one minute, Ashley's Apgar score totaled 6, with respiratory effort and reflex irritability being graded at 2 each, heart rate and muscle tone being graded at 1 each, and color being graded at 0. At 5 minutes, Ashley's Apgar score totaled 8, with heart rate, respiratory effort and reflex irritability being graded at 2 each, and muscle tone and color at 1 each. Such total scores could be characterized by an obstetrician as "good." Pertinent to this case, color, heart rate and respiratory effort are primarily related to the cardiovascular system, and color is the least significant indicator of an infant's brain or neurological status at birth. The categories of reflex irritability and muscle tone are, however, neurological assessments, which offer the greatest insight into the neurological condition of an infant at birth. Ashley's Apgar scores relative to those categories which reflect neurological status at birth were collectively a total of 3 out of a possible 4 at both 1 and 5 minutes. Under the circumstances, Ashley's Apgar scores, either globally or discretely, fail to reflect a hypoxic event at birth. At 6:00 p.m., following delivery, Ashley was admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit due to respiratory distress, possibly secondary to meconium aspiration. Ashley was accorded extra oxygen, via oxygen hood, for two days, and her meconium aspiration was successfully treated with antibiotics. During her admission, no clinical observations were noted that one would typically expect in a child undergoing hypoxic encephalopathy, and no neurological consult was ordered. 2/ On January 7, 1989, Ashley was discharged as an apparently well baby. Subsequent developments On July 29, 1989, Ashley was seen by M. Arenstein, D.O., for a "well baby visit," and no abnormalities were noted; however, on September 6, 1989, Ashley was again seen by Dr. Arenstein at which time the parents expressed their concern regarding Ashley "not sitting up, crawling, etc." Consequently, Dr. Arenstein referred Ashley for a pediatric consult with Jeffrey Perelman, M.D. Ashley was seen by Dr. Perelman on September 19, 1989, and he diagnosed her as developmentally delayed, and ultimately referred her to David Ross, M.D., for a neurological evaluation. Dr. Ross saw Ashley on July 2, 1990, and concluded: The patient has some mild facial dysmorphism with developmental delay in all fields associated with an abnormal neurologic exam with persistence of postural reflexes and hyperreflexia. The spectrum of findings is consistent with mental retardation of a mild to moderate degree probably due to cerebral palsy. 3/ Dr. Ross' ultimate diagnosis was mental retardation, and he recommended that Ashley have a full evaluation, including "an image of the brain either with CT scan or MRI (an EEG, torch titers, chromosome analysis)." Ashley was referred in August 1990, for a CT brain scan and an EEG. The CT scan is a neuroimaging study which can identify structural brain abnormalities occasioned by an hypoxic insult, as well as other causes. The EEG is a device used to detect abnormalities of the electrical currents of the brain such as seizure activity, which is often a manifestation of hypoxic insult at birth, and the death of neuronal cells. Here, both the CT scan and EEG were within normal limits. Ashley continued to be treated by Dr. Perelman through June 1991; however, on August 14, 1991, she came under the care of Miguel Simo, M.D., another pediatrician, because the parents were apparently dissatisfied with Dr. Perelman. Upon examination, Dr. Simo diagnosed Ashley as developmentally delayed, and referred her to Laszlo Mate', M.D., a physician practicing child neurology, for evaluation. Dr. Mate' examined Ashley on August 29, 1991, and observed: . . . a small, dysmorphic female in no apparent distress. Her head circumference is 47 cm which is in the 25th percentile. She doesn't have any neurocutaneous abnormalities. Her palmer creases are somewhat abnormal, but not of simian nature. Her fingers are slightly abnormal, extra long, and she seems to have a proximal displacement of both thumbs. Her ears are malformed with very small earlobes. The ears are somewhat posterior rotated and low set. Her eyes are almond shape but in view of her Indian heritage, that's probably normal. Both parents seem to have similar shaped eyes. The child has a somewhat prominent nose. The mouth is somewhat fishmouth in character and she has fairly shallow temporal area. She doesn't have any eyelashes on her lower eyelid. Dr. Mate's impression was: This is a markedly abnormal child with a developmental quotient in the 30's. She's currently is 30 months old and she functions around a 9-10 month level. She has multiple minor malformations which made the diagnosis of cerebral palsy somewhat unlikely. I suspect we are dealing with some prenatal etiology, either genetic or pregnancy related. 4/ Dr. Simo also referred Ashley for an MRI of the brain. An MRI, as with a CT scan, is a neuroimaging study which can identify structural abnormalities occasioned by hypoxic insult, as well as other causes. The MRI, performed September 20, 1991, was abnormal, evidencing "poor and decreased white matter myelinization extending to the frontal, occipital, and parietal cortex and decrease in white matter content in the centrum semiovale." Such damage could be reflective of birth asphyxia, developmental immaturity of the brain, or a myriad of other causes. Finally, Dr. Simo referred Ashley to Oscar Febles, M.D., a physician practicing genetics. Dr. Febles examined Ashley on November 1, 1991, and rendered a diagnosis of "psychomotor retardation of unknown etiology." Concluding, Dr. Febles observed: The clinical findings in this patient are not diagnostic of a particular genetic syndrome . . . In conclusion, this patient presents a clinical picture characterized by psychomotor retardation that cannot be diagnosed on the clinical findings and/or testing done. The fact that she presents diffuse demyelinization on the MRI would favor the diagnosis of cerebral palsy and/or a CNS degenerative disease. It is my recommendation that an MRI be repeated in approximately 6 months to see if the demyelinization process of the cortex previously seen is progressive or static. If found to be progressive it would indicate a CNS degenerative disease (e.g. leukodystrophies) and if static the diagnosis of cerebral palsy is most likely. In addition, it is also recommended . . . Genetic re-evaluation in 1 year. Whether, consistent with Dr. Febles' recommendation, an MRI was repeated or Ashley had a subsequent genetic re- evaluation does not appear of record. Notably, however, while Ashley was genetically tested and found to have a normal karyotype, such test does not rule out the preponderance of genetic disorders which manifest themselves in microscopic point mutations within a chromosome as opposed to total chromosomal malformation. The medical experts at hearing As to whether Ashley had sustained permanent and substantial mental and physical impairment as a result of an injury to her brain resulting from oxygen deprivation during the course of labor, delivery or resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period, petitioners offered the testimony of Dr. David Ross, who, although a board certified neurologist, does not regularly treat neonates. Dr. Ross examined Ashley on July 2, 1990, and March 2, 1994. It was Dr. Ross' opinion that Ashley suffered a substantial and permanent mental and physical impairment as a consequence of oxygen deprivation during the course of labor and delivery. Compared with the opinion of Dr. Ross, the respondent offered the testimony of Dr. Michael Duchowny. Dr. Duchowny is a child neurologist who is board certified in pediatrics, neurology with special competence in child neurology and clinical neurophysiology. Dr. Duchowny is associated with the department of neurology at Miami Children's Hospital and routinely treats neonates suspected of having suffered a hypoxic event at birth. Dr. Duchowny examined Ashley on September 21, 1992, as well as observed her at hearing, and was familiar, as was Dr. Ross, with the pertinent medical records. It was Dr. Duchowny's opinion that Ashley was substantially and permanently mentally impaired, but that her physical impairment could best be described as mild to moderate. As to causation, it was Dr. Duchowny's opinion that the cause (etiology) of Ashley's mental and physical impairment (neurologic syndrome) was a developmental problem of in utero (prenatal) or genetic origin, and that any fetal distress she may have suffered at birth was not substantial and did not contribute to her condition. [Tr. 97] Here, I accept the testimony and opinion of Dr. Duchowny as being the more credible and substantial as to whether Ashley sustained a substantial and permanent mental and physical impairment, and the cause of such dysfunction. Dr. Duchowny's opinions are credible, supported by the observations of other physicians as heretofore noted, and are most consistent with conclusions to be drawn or inferences raised by the medical records received into evidence.
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.
