The Issue At issue in the proceeding is whether James Russell, a minor, suffered an injury for which compensation should be awarded under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
Findings Of Fact Lisa Russell and William Russell, III, are the parents and natural guardians of James Russell (James), a minor. James was born a live infant on February 12, 1997, at Columbia Memorial Hospital, a hospital located in Jacksonville, Florida, and his birth weight was in excess of 2500 grams. The physician providing obstetrical services during the birth of James was Brent Seibel, 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(2), Florida Statutes. 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." Sections 766.302(2) and 766.309(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Here, James' mental presentation is dispositive of the claim and it is unnecessary to address the cause or timing of any injury he may have suffered. To address James' physical and mental status, the opinions of Michael Duchowny, M.D., a pediatric neurologist were offered. (Respondent's Exhibit 1). It was the uncontroverted opinion of Dr. Duchowny that, while James suffers a permanent and substantial physical impairment, he does not suffer a permanent and substantial mental impairment. Consequently, it must be resolved that the proof failed to demonstrate that James was "permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired," as required for coverage under the Plan.
Findings Of Fact Alvaro Tadeo Iriarte Quiroga was born on May 31, 2007, at Jackson Memorial Hospital in Miami, Florida. Alvaro weighed 2,865 grams at birth. NICA retained Michael S. Duchowny, M.D., as its medical expert in pediatric neurology. Dr. Duchowny examined Alvaro and reviewed his medical records. Dr. Duchowny opined as follows: In summary, Alvaro's neurological examination reveals evidence of abnormal cranial configuration, speech dysarthria, short attention span, high activity level, inconsistent social visual regard, and limited social interaction. He manifests an expressive language delay. He also demonstrates fine motor incoordination. These findings are consistent with a diagnosis of pervasive developmental disorder (PDD) which does not constitute either a substantial mental or motor impairment. A review of Alvaro's medical records indicates that he was born at 37 weeks gestation at Jackson Memorial Hospital with a birth weight of 2,865 gm. Cord Blood gases reveled [sic] significant acidosis and he did not get oxygen for a prolonged period of time (23 minutes). He went on to evidence renal failure and liver dysfunction and had polcythemia and thrombocytopenia. A brain CT scan revealed partial craniosynostois of the anterior sagittal suture. Of note, Alvaro's MRI scan of the brain performed on June 7, 2007 showed no significant abnormalities. Despite his adverse perinatal circumstances, I do not believe that Alvaro's present neurological problems resulted from either mechanical injury or oxygen deprivation in the course of labor or delivery. Furthermore, he has neither a substantial mental nor motor impairment. For these reasons, I am not recommending Alvaro for compensation within the NICA program. A review of the file does not show any opinion contrary to Dr. Duchowny's opinions Alvaro did not suffer a neurological injury due to oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury during labor or delivery and that Alvaro does not have a substantial and permanent mental and physical impairment due to lack of oxygen or mechanical trauma are 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 in the proceeding is whether Clayton Kenneth Hunter Cochran (Hunter), a minor, suffered an injury for which compensation should be awarded under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan.
Findings Of Fact Jean Ann Cochran and Clayton Leon Cochran, are the parents and natural guardians of Clayton Kenneth Hunter Cochran (Hunter). Hunter was born a live infant on June 12, 1997, at Orlando Regional Health Care System, Inc., d/b/a South Seminole Hospital, a hospital located in Longwood, Florida, and his birth weight was in excess of 2500 grams. The physician providing obstetrical services during the birth of Hunter was John V. Parker, 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(2), Florida Statutes. 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." Sections 766.302(2) and 766.309(1)(a), Florida Statutes. Here, Hunter's mental and physical presentation are dispositive of the claim and it is unnecessary to address the cause or timing of any injury he may have suffered. To address Hunter's current physical and mental status, Petitioners offered the opinions of Michael S. Duchowny, M.D., a pediatric neurologist, as well as the results of Hunter's recent occupational therapy evaluations by the Easter Seal Program of Volusia and Flagler Counties. Notably, Dr. Duchowny examined Hunter on March 20, 2000, and reported the results of his neurological evaluation as follows: NEUROLOGIC EXAMINATION reveals Hunter to be alert and socially oriented. He tends toward non-fluency, but can communicate some thoughts in words. Hunter has a speech articulation defect. He can talk in phrases and short sentences. There is good central gaze fixation with conjugate following movements. The pupils are 3 mm and briskly reactive. There are no fundoscopic findings and no significant facial asymmetries. The tongue and palate move well without drooling. Motor examination reveals symmetric strength, bulk and tone. There are no adventitious movements, focal weakness or atrophy. The outstretched hands are markedly postured. His gait is stable and reasonably narrow based. The deep tendon reflexes are 2+ and symmetric. The plantar responses are downgoing. Neurovascular examination reveals no cervical, cranial or ocular bruits and no temperature or pulse asymmetries. The sensory and cerebellar examinations are deferred. In SUMMARY, Hunter presents as a 2 1/2 year old boy with an expressive language delay and speech dysfluency. In contrast, he has mild fine motor incoordination, but his examination is otherwise non-focal. I have not as yet had an opportunity to review Hunter's records and will issue a final report once the review process is complete. Subsequently, Dr. Duchowny had an opportunity to review the medical records, and on April 11, 2000, reported his conclusions as follows: A review of medical records and the medical evaluation of Clayton "Hunter" Cochran leads me to believe that he does not have significant neurologic impairment. His neurologic examination reveals evidence of an expressive language delay and some fine motor incoordination. Both of these findings are developmentally based and indicate acquisition in utero, long before the onset of labor and delivery. These findings are mild and there certainly is no evidence of substantial mental or motor impairment. Furthermore, Hunter's developmental delay would be expected to improve over time and therefore is not permanent. Dr. Duchowny's deposition testimony and the results of recent occupational therapy evaluations by the Easter Seal Program are consistent with the opinions heretofore expressed by Dr. Duchowny. Consequently, it must be resolved that the proof failed to demonstrate that Hunter was "permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired," as required for coverage under the Plan.
The Issue Whether Jacqueline Simone Jackson (Jacqueline), a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (Plan). If so, whether Petitioners' settlement of a civil suit against the hospital where Jacqueline was born for negligence associated with her birth bars them from recovery of an award under the Plan. Whether the participating physicians complied with the notice provisions of the Plan.
Findings Of Fact Findings related to compensability Tracie Turner Jackson and Ulysses Bernard Jackson are the natural parents and guardians of Jacqueline Simone Jackson, a minor. Jacqueline was born a live infant on December 8, 1999, at Orlando Regional Healthcare System, d/b/a Arnold Palmer Hospital for Women and Children (Arnold Palmer Hospital), a licensed hospital located in Orlando, Florida, and her birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. The physicians providing obstetrical services at Jacqueline's birth were Alejandro J. Pena, M.D., and Marc W. Bischof, M.D., who, at all times material hereto, were "participating physician[s]" in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan, as defined by Section 766.302(7), Florida Statutes. 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 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, the parties have stipulated, and the proof is otherwise compelling, that Jacqueline suffered a "birth-related neurological injury." Consequently, since obstetrical services were provided by a "participating physician" at birth, the claim is covered by the Plan. §§ 766.309(1) and 766.31(1), Fla. Stat. The settlement with Arnold Palmer Hospital In 2002, Tracie Turner Jackson and Ulysses Bernard Jackson, individually and as parents and natural guardians of their minor daughter, Jacqueline Simone Jackson, Plaintiffs, filed a medical malpractice claim arising out of the birth of Jacqueline against Orlando Regional Health Care System, Inc., d/b/a Arnold Palmer Hospital for Women and Children; Alejandro J. Pena, M.D.; Marc W. Bischof, M.D.; Physician Associates of Florida, Inc.; T. Zinkil, R.N.; S. Furgus, R.N.; Nancy Ruiz, R.N.; L. Baker, R.N.; T. Flyn, R.N.; and Nancy Ostrum, R.N., Defendants, in the Circuit Court of the Ninth Judicial Circuit in and for Orange County, Florida, Case No. 2002-CA-6770 Div. 34. A settlement was reached with Arnold Palmer Hospital, but the case against Dr. Pena, Dr. Bischof, and Physician Associates of Florida, Inc., remained pending.3 Given Petitioners' settlement with Arnold Palmer Hospital, and the provisions of Section 766.304, Florida Statutes (1999)4("An action may not be brought under ss. 766.301- 766.316 if the claimant recovers or final judgment is entered."), Petitioners and Respondent stipulated that "Petitioners are not entitled to any actual payment or award from NICA, even if a finding is made that the claim is compensable and adequate notice was given." (Petitioners' letter of November 18, 2004, filed November 19, 2004, and Respondent's letter of November 16, 2004, filed November 16, 2004.) The notice provisions of the Plan While the claim qualifies for coverage under the Plan, Petitioners have responded to the physicians' claim of Plan immunity by averring that the participating physicians who delivered obstetrical services at Jacqueline's birth (Doctors Pena and Bischof) failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Plan. Consequently, it is necessary to resolve whether either participating physician gave the required notice. O'Leary v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, 757 So. 2d 624, 627 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)("All questions of compensability, including those which arise regarding the adequacy of notice, are properly decided in the administrative forum.") Accord University of Miami v. M.A., 793 So. 2d 999 (Fla. 3d DCA 2001); Tabb v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, 880 So. 2d 1253 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). See also Behan v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, 664 So. 2d 1173 (Fla. 4th DCA 1995). But see All Children's Hospital, Inc. v. Department of Administrative Hearings, 863 So. 2d 450 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004) (certifying conflict); Florida Health Sciences Center, Inc. v. Division of Administrative Hearings, 871 So. 2d 1062 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)(same); and Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association v. Ferguson, 869 So. 2d 686 (Fla. 2d DCA 2004)(same). At all times material hereto, Section 766.316, Florida Statutes, prescribed the notice provisions of the Plan, as follows: Each hospital with a participating physician on its staff and each participating physician, other than residents, assistant residents, and interns deemed to be participating physicians under s. 766.314(4)(c), under the Florida Birth- Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan shall provide notice to the obstetrical patients as to the limited no-fault alternative for birth-related neurological injuries. Such notice shall be provided on forms furnished by the association and shall include a clear and concise explanation of a patient's rights and limitations under the plan. The hospital or the participating physician may elect to have the patient sign a form acknowledging receipt of the notice form. Signature of the patient acknowledging receipt of the notice form raises a rebuttable presumption that the notice requirements of this section have been met. Notice need not be given to a patient when the patient has an emergency medical condition as defined in s. 395.002(9)(b) or when notice is not practicable. Responding to Section 766.316, Florida Statutes, NICA developed a brochure, titled "Peace of Mind for an Unexpected Problem" (the NICA brochure), which contained a clear and concise explanation of a patient's rights and limitations under the Plan, and distributed the brochure to participating physicians and hospitals so they could furnish a copy of it to their obstetrical patients. (See, e.g., Petitioners' Exhibit 2, the NICA brochure, "This brochure is prepared in accordance with the mandate of [Section] 766.316, Florida Statutes.") Findings related to the participating physicians and notice Mrs. Jackson received her prenatal care at the Longwood Center, one of 7 offices in the Orlando area operated by Physician Associates of Florida (PAF), a group practice comprised of 35 physicians, including 16 obstetrician- gynecologists. (See, e.g., Intervenors' Exhibits 1, 2, 4, and 6.) At the time, four obstetricians staffed the OB-GYN department at the Longwood Office, Dr. Marc Bischof, who provided obstetrical services during Jacqueline's birth; Dr. Robert Bowels; Dr. Peter Perry; and Dr. Jose Lopez-Cintron. However, as a group practice, all obstetricians rotated delivery calls at the hospital, so it was possible, as occurred in this case with Dr. Pena, that a doctor from a different office would participate in the delivery. Notably, all obstetricians associated with PAF were participating physicians in the Plan. On April 12, 1999, Mrs. Jackson presented to the Longwood Center for her initial visit. At the time, consistent with established routine, the receptionist provided Mrs. Jackson with a packet of information that included a number of forms for her to complete and sign, including: a Patient Information form; a Consent for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Antibody Testing form; a Triple Test Form (a screening test for Down's Syndrome); a Prenatal Diagnosis Screening Questionnaire; and a Notice to Obstetrical Patient (to acknowledge receipt of the NICA brochure that was, indisputably, included in the packet). The Notice to Obstetric Patient provided, as follows: NOTICE TO OBSTETRIC PATIENT (See Section 766.316, Florida Statutes) I have been furnished information by Physician Associates of Florida prepared by the Florida Birth Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, and have been advised that [5] is a participating physician in that program, wherein certain limited compensation is available in the event certain neurological injury may occur during labor, delivery or resuscitation. For specifics on the program, I understand I can contact the Florida Birth Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association (NICA), 1435 Piedmont Drive East, Suite 101, Tallahassee, Florida 32312 1-800-398-2129. I further acknowledge that I have received a copy of the brochure prepared by NICA. DATED this day of , 199 . Signature (NAME OF PATIENT) Social Security No.: Attest: (Nurse or Physician) Date: Mrs. Jackson completed each of the forms, including the Notice to Obstetric Patient, by providing the requested information, and then signing and dating the forms. (Petitioners' Exhibit 1). Here, there is no dispute that Mrs. Jackson signed the Notice to Obstetric Patient or that she received a copy of the NICA brochure on her initial visit. There is likewise no dispute that, given the blank space, the notice form was inadequate to provide notice that Dr. Bischof, Dr. Pena, or any obstetrician associated with PAF was a participating physician in the Plan. Rather, what is disputed is whether, as contended by Intervenors, Mrs. Jackson was told during her initial visit that all obstetricians in PAF were participants in the Plan.6 Regarding Mrs. Jackson's initial visit, the proof demonstrates that, following completion of the paperwork, Mrs. Jackson was seen by Nurse Posey for her initial interview. Typically, such visits lasted approximately 45 minutes, with 30 minutes spent reviewing the patient's history, as well as the paperwork she received in the packet, and 15 minutes spent on a physical examination. According to Nurse Posey, she conducted a minimum of two initial prenatal interviews daily, five days a week, and followed the same procedure during each interview. As described by Nurse Posey, during the initial interview she always discussed each form (the Prenatal Diagnosis Screening Questionnaire, the Triple Test Form, Consent for Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) Antibody Testing form, and the Notice to Obstetric Patient) individually, and when the form had been discussed she would co-sign the form. (Transcript, pp. 65- 68) Moreover, as for the NICA program, Nurse Posey always confirmed that the patient had received the NICA brochure, and told the patient that PAF's obstetrical service was "a group practice; that anyone in the group could do the delivery; and that each member of the group was a participant in the NICA program." (Transcript, pp. 68-70) Finally, Nurse Posey documented her routine through an entry on the prenatal flow sheet (Intervenors' Exhibit 6), which noted she had provided the patient information on the various tests, as well as the NICA brochure and notification. Here, that entry read: "Pt given info on diet, exercise, HIV screening, triple test, NICA pamphlet & notification & cord blood storage." (Petitioners' Exhibit 1, Intervenors' Exhibit 6, and Transcript, pp. 70-78.) In this case, Nurse Posey was confident she had followed her routine, since she would not have co-signed the various documents, such as the Notice to Obstetric Patient, or made the entry on the prenatal flow sheet unless she had done so. In response to the evidence offered by Intervenors on the notice issue, Mrs. Jackson testified there was never a discussion of the NICA program, and she was never told the physicians associated with PAF's obstetrical program were participating physicians in the Plan. However, Mrs. Jackson acknowledged that Nurse Posey questioned her regarding her medical history, and that she explained the Prenatal Diagnosis Screening Questionnaire, the Triple Test Form, and the HIV form. (Transcript, pp. 141-145) As for the Notice to Obstetric Patient, Mrs. Jackson initially denied having read it; then testified she may have read it "briefly," but "didn't go into details" or "seek out specifics"; and finally stated she could not remember reading the form, but could not deny that she may have read it. (Transcript, pp. 150, 151, 156-159) Here, giving due consideration to the proof, it must be resolved that the more persuasive proof supports the conclusion that, more likely than not, Nurse Posey, consistent with her routine, discussed the NICA program with Mrs. Jackson on her initial visit, and informed Mrs. Jackson that the physicians associated with PAF's obstetrical program were participating physicians in the Plan. In so concluding, it is noted that, but for the NICA program, Mrs. Jackson acknowledged Nurse Posey otherwise followed her routine; that it is unlikely, given such consistency, Nurse Posey would not have also discussed the NICA program; that Nurse Posey, as was her routine, co-signed each of the forms she discussed with Mrs. Jackson, including the Notice to Obstetric Patient; that Nurse Posey, as was her routine, documented her activity on the prenatal flow sheet; and that Mrs. Jackson evidenced little recall of the documents she signed or the discussions she had with Nurse Posey. Finally, Nurse Posey's testimony was logical, consistent, and credible, whereas Mrs. Jackson's testimony was often equivocal. Jurisdiction
The Issue At issue is whether Christian M. Hernandez, a minor, qualifies for coverage under the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (Plan).
Findings Of Fact Preliminary findings related to compensability Miguel Hernandez and Lynn Hernandez, are the parents and natural guardians of Christian M. Hernandez, a minor. Christian was born a live infant on March 28, 2005, at Mount Sinai Medical Center, a hospital located in Miami Beach, Florida, and his birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. Obstetrical services were delivered at Christian's birth by Melvin E. Castillo, 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."1 § 766.302(2), Fla. Stat. See also §§ 766.309 and 766.31, Fla. Stat. Here, Petitioners and NICA are of the view that Christian did not suffer such an injury, whereas Intervenors hold a contrary view. Whether Christian suffered a "birth-related neurological injury" To address whether Christian suffered a "birth-related neurological injury," the parties offered the Mount Sinai Medical Center records associated with Christian's birth and immediate newborn course, March 28, 2005, to April 2, 2005 (Joint Exhibits 1 and 2), as well as the Miami Children's Hospital medical records associated with his subsequent care, April 2, 2005, to May 11, 2005 (Joint Exhibit 3). The parties also offered the deposition testimony of Donald Willis, M.D., a physician board-certified in obstetrics and gynecology, and maternal-fetal medicine, and Michael Duchowny, M.D., a physician board-certified in pediatrics, neurology with special competence in child neurology, electroencephalography, and neurophysiology. (Joint Exhibits 4 and 5). Dr. Willis reviewed the medical records related to Christian's birth and subsequent development, and accurately summarized his history, as follows: . . . The mother, Lynn Hernandez, was a 36 year old G3 P2 admitted at term in early labor. Her cervix was dilated 2 cms. She was taking Synthroid for hypothyroidism and had a previous Cesarean delivery. Meconium was identified with rupture of the membranes. Ampicillin was given during labor. The fetal heart rate pattern on admission had a normal baseline and was reactive. Variable decelerations, to about 90 bpm, developed during the second stage of labor and vacuum assisted delivery was done for this indication. Vacuum was applied and the baby was delivered on the first pull. Delivery was complicated by a tight nuchal cord and mild shoulder dystocia. McRoberts maneuver was required for delivery of the shoulders. Birth weight was 4,180 grams or 9 lbs 3 ozs. No meconium was identified below the vocal cords by neonatal evaluation. Apgar scores were 7/9/9. The baby was floppy at birth, but responded to resuscitation. From the delivery room, the baby was taken to the NICU for possible sepsis and respiratory distress. Retractions and a rapid respiratory rate were present. Neurologic exam was normal. Oxygen saturation was in the 90's on admission, but the baby was unable to maintain adequate oxygenation with hood oxygen. Oxygen saturation dropped to the 50's and intubation and mechanical ventilation was required shortly after being admitted to the NICU (about one hour). Respiratory distress continued with progressively increasing ventilator settings required to maintain adequate oxygenation. The baby was transferred to Miami Children's Hospital for possible ECMO. Diagnoses included meconium aspiration syndrome, suspected viral pneumonia and significant pulmonary hypertension. Chest tubes were placed for pneumothorax. Respiratory distress worsened and ECMO was started. Head ultrasound was done before ECMO and was normal. The baby suffered an intracranial hemorrhage while on ECMO, which required discontinuation of ECMO. The baby was on ECMO for 32 hours. Serial CT scans showed an evolving intracranial hemorrhage with eventual development of a porencephalic cyst. The baby was discharged home on day 43 of life. (Joint Exhibit 4; See also Joint Exhibit 1; Joint Exhibit 2, Discharge Summary; Joint Exhibit 3, Discharge Summary). Based on his evaluation of the medical records, it was Dr. Willis' opinion that Christian did not suffer a brain injury caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury during labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate postdelivery period, and that the intracranial hemorrhage he suffered while on ECMO, was a complication of the blood thinner (anti-coagulant) required for ECMO therapy.2 (Joint Exhibit 4, pp. 13, 14, and 22). Compare, Orlando Regional Health Care System, Inc. v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, 33 Fla. L. Weekly D2563 (Fla. 5th DCA 2008)(Where infant found to have suffered a "birth-related neurological injury" when it was shown that the infant required active resuscitation from birth until he was placed on ECMO bypass hours after his birth, and that the infant suffered a brain injury caused by oxygen deprivation, which rendered him permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired, between the time of birth and the time of being placed on ECMO.). Notably, it was not shown through Dr. Willis' testimony or otherwise that Christian's intracranial hemorrhage was caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury, and Dr. Willis offered no opinion regarding the significance of, or any sequelae caused by, the brain injury Christian suffered while on ECMO. (Joint Exhibit 4, p. 14). Dr. Duchowny evaluated Christian on September 28, 2007. Based on his evaluation, as well as his review of the medical records, Dr. Duchowny was of the opinion that Christian's impairments were, more likely than not, the result of a developmentally based brain disorder, as opposed to a brain injury. Dr. Duchowny was also of the opinion that Christian does not have a substantial physical impairment. Rather his motor function is essentially appropriate for age and he does not currently demonstrate, and is unlikely to demonstrate in the future, a substantial mental impairment. (Joint Exhibit 5). When, as here, the medical condition is not readily observable, issues of causation are essentially medical questions, requiring expert medical evidence. 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."); 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."); 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 obligated to present expert medical evidence establishing that causal connection."). Here, the opinions of Doctors Willis and Duchowny were not controverted or shown to lack credibility. Consequently, it must be resolved that the cause of Christian's impairments was most likely a developmentally based brain abnormality, as opposed to a "birth- related neurological injury," and, regardless of the etiology of his impairments, he is not permanently and substantially mentally and physically impaired. See 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.").
