Findings Of Fact By stipulation filed December 2, 1993, petitioners and respondent stipulated as follows: That pursuant to Chapter 766.301- 766.316, 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 Jasmin Soto, Violeta Rodriguez and Luis Soto (the "Petitioners") for benefits under Chapter 766.301-766.316 (F.S.) 1988. That a timely filed claim for benefits complying with the requirements of F.S. 766.305 was filed by the Petitioners and a timely denial was filed on behalf of the Association. That the infant, Jasmin Soto, was born at Baptist Hospital on September 29, 1990, and that the said hospital was a licensed Florida Hospital and the attending physician was a participating physician within the meaning of Chapter 766, Florida Statutes. 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, states that "birth-related neurological injury" means injury to the brain or spinal cord of a live infant weighing at least 2500 grams at birth caused by oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury occurring in the course of labor, delivery, or resuscitation in the immediate post- delivery in a hospital, which renders the infant permanently and substantially, mentally and physically impaired. The parties agree that Jasmin Soto suffers from a right brachial plexus injury. That the parties stipulate to the authenticity of the medical records and/or medical reports of Michael Duchowny, M.D., who appears on behalf of the Respondents and Leon I. Charash, M.D., who appears on behalf of the Petitioner. While Dr. Charash has not been deposed, Dr. Duchowny has been deposed and his deposition is submitted as part of this Stipulation. The parties stipulate that there are no other pertinent medical facts to be considered by the Division of Administrative Hearings. The parties further Stipulate that if the parties were to proceed to a hearing on the merits no further proof would be offered and traditional burdens of proof would apply. Based upon this stipulation, the parties request the hearing officer to rule on Petitioner's claim based upon this Stipulation, the attached medical records and the deposition of Dr. Duchowny. The neurological examinations of Jasmin reveal that she suffered from a "mild" to "moderate" right Erb's palsy related directly to the right brachial plexus injury she received at birth. A brachial plexus injury, the cause of Erb's palsy, is not, however, a brain or spinal cord injury. Moreover, Jasmin's mental functioning is normal and not impaired due to any birth- related complications.
The Issue At issue in the proceeding is whether Ava Katherine Nagy, 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 Thomas Nagy and Dawn Nagy are the parents and natural guardians of Ava Katherine Nagy, a deceased minor. Ava was born a live infant on November 20, 1998, at South Broward Hospital District, d/b/a Memorial Regional Hospital, 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 Ava was Susan Davila, 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 proof demonstrates, more likely than not, that the infant suffered 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."1 Here, NICA and the Intervenors are of the view that Ava suffered a "birth- related neurological injury," as defined by the Plan, and request that the claim be accepted as compensable. Petitioners, however, are of the view that Ava did not suffer a "birth-related neurological injury" and request that the claim be rejected so they may pursue their civil remedies. Ava's birth and subsequent development Mrs. Nagy presented at Memorial Regional Hospital at approximately 6:00 a.m., November 20, 1998, for induction of labor. Apart from being slightly post-date (with an EDC of November 16, 1998), Mrs. Nagy's prenatal course had been uncomplicated, and on admission fetal heart rate was noted within normal limits (at 140-150 beats per minute) and positive fetal movements were reported. Mrs. Nagy's labor progress was slow, but steady, and external fetal monitoring reflected a normal fetal heart rate throughout the course of labor. At about 5:30 p.m., Mrs. Nagy began to push and at 8:00 p.m., with arrest of descent noted, Dr. Davila attempted a vacuum assisted delivery. According to the records, two pulls were made without success, and Mrs. Nagy was transferred to the operating room for delivery by cesarean section. Ava was delivered by cesarean section at 8:43 p.m. On delivery, Ava was noted to be pale, with poor perfusion, and her heart sounds were noted as distant. Ava was warmed, dried, and stimulated; suctioned by catheter; and offered free-flowing oxygen by mask. Apgar scores were noted as 6 at one minute and 7 at five minutes. The Apgar scores assigned to Ava are a numerical expression of the condition of a newborn infant, and reflect the sum points gained on assessment of 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, Ava's Apgar score totaled 6, with heart rate being graded at 2, and respiratory effort, muscle tone, reflex irritability, and color being graded at 1 each. At five minutes, Ava's Apgar score totaled 7, with heart rate and respiratory effort being graded at 2 each, and muscle tone, reflex irritability, and color being graded at 1 each. Ava was transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU), where she was admitted at 8:52 p.m., and placed in a preheated isolate. Assessment on admission evidenced a temperature of 975, pulse of 140, respiratory rate of 64, and blood pressure of 43/23/33. Abnormalities noted included a bruised scalp; boggy occipital area, with possible cephalohematoma ("a subperiosteal hemorrhage limited to the surface of one cranial bone, a usually benign condition seen frequently in the newborn as a result of bone trauma");2 pink, cyanotic skin color, as well as pale mouth and lips; and distant heart sounds. Preliminary diagnosis was hypovolemia ("abnormally decreased volume of circulating fluid (plasma) in the body").3 "UVC were placed by Dr. [Mesfin] Afework, the [neonatalogist], . . . admission labs obtained, [and] x-ray called." Over the next half-hour, Ava's blood pressure dropped and she was started on saline bolus and sodium bicarbonate. When she failed to improve, Ava was started on albumin and dopamine drip. Notwithstanding, at 10:45 p.m., Ava was in respiratory failure, and she was intubated and placed on a respiratory. Dr. Afework's physical examination at approximately 10:30 p.m., noted a temperature of 925, pulse rate of 110, respiratory rate of 64, and blood pressure of 43/23/33. Abnormalities noted were a pale infant, with poor perfusion; a boggy occipital area, with suspected bleed; distant heart sounds; and poor peripheral pulses. Neurological assessment revealed a limp infant, with reduced movement. Dr. Afework's diagnosis included hypotension/shock, hypovolemia, and subgaleal bleed (bleeding between the skull and the scalp). His plan of treatment included volume expansion, correction of her acidotic state, and transfusion with packed red blood cells. Subsequent laboratory results revealed a low hematocrit, consistent with internal bleeding. Ava was not responsive to volume replacement, sodium bicarbonate for acidosis, or dopamine to maintain her blood pressure; she continued to deteriorate and bleed internally; and by 3:00 a.m., November 21, 1998, she was in cardiogenic shock. At the time, Dr. Afework noted a diagnosis of "persistent acidosis/cardiogenic shock" and that trial of ECMO (Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation) was the only chance, albeit a slim chance, she had for survival. Ava was placed on ECMO at approximately 4:50 a.m. Unfortunately, due to an anticoagulant used to prevent clotting during the procedure, she began to bleed from her mouth, and bleeding increased under her scalp and into her neck. Due to the active bleeding and persistent acidosis dispute sodium bicarbonate drip, discontinuation of ECMO was recommended. Moreover, due to Ava's poor chance of recovery, her physician also recommended that conventional therapy (such as mechanical ventilation) not be resumed. When the parents were informed that Ava had not responded to ECMO treatment, and that she had a terminal condition ("caused by injury, disease, or illness from which, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, there is no reasonable probability of recovery and which may be expected to cause death") they consented to withdrawing and withholding life prolonging procedures. Parental consents were signed at 10:05 a.m., ECMO was clamped at 10:07 a.m., and Ava was pronounced dead at 10:45 a.m., November 21, 1998.4 The cause and timing of the injury which led to Ava's neurologic insult and death Here, it is not subject to serious debate that, at delivery, Ava received an injury, a subgaleal hemorrhage, caused by the traumatic application of the vacuum extractor and that the hemorrhage continued, and became more critical, resulting in the pathophysiology of events (including hypovolemia, hypoprofusion, hypotension, and the clinical appearance of cardiogenic shock) which followed. Dr. Robert F. Cullen, Jr., a pediatric neurologist, whose opinions were offered on behalf of Petitioners, described the pathophysiology of events which ensued, including brain injury, as follows: Q. So it was the initial trauma which caused the bleeding, which then caused the other sequela . . . [as well as] oxygen deprivation to the brain, correct? A. It was trauma to the skull that produced anemia . . . [a consequence of hypovolema], hypotension, hypoprofusion, ischemia, cardiogenic shock, ultimately deprivation of oxygen to the brain and death. That's the sequence of events that continues to occur over the 14 hours after the child's birth. * * * Q. The metabolic acidosis in this case . . . would be evidence of an injury to the brain, correct, sir? * * * A. I think that the acidosis and the progressively developing base excess would be indicative of brain injury and systemic injury to multiple tissues. Q. Including the brain, sir? A. Including the brain but that was progressive throughout the rest of the night and the following morning. Q. You can't tell at what time that occurred, can you, sir? A. I can tell you at midnight it [pH] was 6.83 so by that time there was certainly injury. * * * [Q.] Do you have an opinion as to whether this baby at any time suffered brain damage and, if so, when? * * * A. I think that this baby was suffering brain damage during this 14-hour spectrum. I think it became more apparent after a few hours when the baby's blood pressure -- and we're in a picture of cardiogenic shock, but I can't give you the minute at which it occurred, no. It's a sequence of events that continue to compound themselves. Q. So when I asked you when, that's generally the best you can do with the information that you have? You can't actually pinpoint it? A. I can't give you a time, no. Q. It was an ongoing process in your opinion. A. It was an ongoing process that became progressively worse, yes. * * * [With regard to the significance of Ava's neurologic insult], this child did not have permanent and substantial mental impairment within the hour of delivery, and that permanent and substantial mental and physical impairment developed over the ensuing hours as a result of the hemorrhage in the subgaleal space and the other pathophysiological events that occurred. Q. You agree that there was permanent physical and mental impairment but it wasn't within the first hour post-delivery; is that what your testimony is? * * * A. I've said yes because the baby died as a result of this injury so that's as permanent as you can get. What I'm saying is that there's an ongoing sequence of events that produces a point of no return. That is not within the first hour, even though there may be some cellular injury occurring at that time, and it really doesn't become manifest for a number of hours. Can I give you a fixed time during that 14 hours? No. Dr. Michael Duchowny, also a pediatric neurologist, whose opinions were offered on behalf of NICA, agreed with Dr. Cullen's observations as to the cause, timing, and nature of Ava's injury, as well as the pathophysiology of the events that ensued. As Dr. Duchowny observed: . . . this baby's demise was a direct result of a sequence that began intrapartum and that was related to the vacuum extraction. Specifically that was related to [a subgaleal] hemorrhage and then the subsequent complications of hemorrhage [hypovolemia, hypotension, and hypoprofusion] which led to brain damage [most likely hypoxic or ischemic in nature], systemic collapse, and death. Dr. Cullen's and Dr. Duchowny's opinions concerning the cause, timing, and nature of Ava's injury, as well as their opinions regarding the nature of the rapidly progressive catastrophe that ensued, are grossly consistent with the record, are founded on a logical premise, and are accepted as credible and persuasive. Given the record, it may be resolved that Ava received a mechanical injury (a subgaleal hemorrhage, resulting from the traumatic application of the vacuum extractor) during the course of delivery. The record further reveals that the hemorrhage continued unabated, resulting in hypovolemia, hypotension, hypoprofusion, ischemia, cardiogenic shock, deprivation of oxygen to the brain, systemic collapse, and death. Finally, the record reveals that, while the effects of the hemorrhage may not have produced a significant brain injury during labor or resuscitation in the immediate post-delivery period, brain damage was progressive and became evident at least by midnight, if not by 10:30 p.m., and progressively worsened until a point in time (described by Dr. Cullen as "a point of no return"), prior to Ava's death or her removal from life support, when the injury was so profound that the resulting impairment (mental and physical) could reasonably be described as permanent and substantial.
The Issue The issue to be determined is whether Aiyanna suffered a “birth-related neurological injury,” as defined in section 766.302, Florida Statutes (2015).
Findings Of Fact On March 20, 2016, the Hospital admitted Shawntel Gordon and she gave birth to a baby girl named Aiyanna on March 21, 2016. As stipulated by the parties, the medical records demonstrate that Amy Jo Gabriel, M.D. provided obstetric services relative to the birth of Aiyanna. Based on the affidavit of NICA’s records custodian, Tim Daughtry, and the official payment history attached thereto, Dr. Gabriel never paid the annual $5,000 assessment required by physicians who elect to participate in the Plan to NICA. NICA lacked any documentation from Dr. Gabriel that she was exempt from paying the $5,000 assessment as a resident physician, assistant resident physician, or intern. Rather, Dr. Gabriel paid $250 to NICA in 2016—the annual assessment for physicians who do not qualify for an exemption and nevertheless elect not to participate in the Plan.
The Issue Whether birth-related neurological injuries which result in death during the neonatal period2 are covered by the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan (Plan) and, if so, whether Nicholas Erwin Schur, a deceased minor, otherwise qualifies for coverage under the Plan. Whether the notice requirements of the Plan were satisfied. Whether the Division of Administrative Hearings has the exclusive jurisdiction to resolve or, alternatively, must preliminarily resolve, whether there is "clear and convincing evidence of bad faith or malicious purpose or willful and wanton disregard of human rights, safety, or property" before a claimant may elect (under the provisions of Section 766.303(2), Florida Statutes) to reject Plan coverage and pursue such a civil suit. What effect, if any, the claimants' settlement with the birthing hospital has on the availability of benefits under the Plan. Whether the participating physician's corporate employers have standing to participate in this proceeding.
Findings Of Fact Fundamental findings Petitioners, Nicholas J. Schur and Lisa Schur, are the parents and natural guardians of Nicholas Erwin Schur (Nicholas), a deceased minor, and co-personal representatives of their deceased son's estate. Nicholas was born September 20, 1998, at Baptist Medical Center of the Beaches, Inc. (Baptist Medical Center), a hospital located in Jacksonville Beach, Duval County, Florida, and his birth weight exceeded 2,500 grams. Nicholas died on September 24, 1998, during the neonatal period at Baptist Medical Center.4 The physician providing obstetrical services during Nicholas' birth was Marijane Q. Boyd, 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 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, and the parties have stipulated, that Nicholas suffered a "birth-related neurological injury," as defined by the Plan. Consequently, since obstetrical services were provided by a "participating physician" at birth, NICA is of the view that, under the provisions of the Plan, the claim is compensable. NICA's conclusion is grossly consistent with the proof and is, therefore, approved.5 Notice of Plan participation While the claim qualifies for coverage under the Plan, Petitioners have responded to the health care providers' claim of Plan immunity by contending that the participating physician who delivered obstetrical services at birth (Dr. Marijane Boyd) failed to comply with the notice provisions of the Plan. As for Baptist Medical Center, the parties have stipulated that it provided timely pre-delivery notice as envisioned by the Plan. Consequently, it is only necessary to resolve whether, as alleged by the health care providers, the notice provisions of the Plan were satisfied by or on behalf of Dr. Boyd. O'Leary v. Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, 757 So. 2d 624 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000), and University of Miami v. M.A., 26 Fla. L. Weekly D1473a (Fla. 3d DCA June 13, 2001). Pertinent to the notice issue, the proof demonstrates that on or about January 27, 1998, Mrs. Schur sought prenatal care from her existing provider, Cleveland W. Randolph, Jr., M.D., a physician who, together with Samuel A. Christian, M.D., maintained an office for the practice of obstetrics and gynecology (OB/GYN) known as North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., Beaches-Division I, at 1375 Roberts Drive, Suite 205, Jacksonville Beach, Florida. At the time, Drs. Randolph and Christian, like approximately 40 other obstetricians practicing in the Jacksonville area, were employees/shareholders of North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A. Notably, all obstetricians employed by North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., were "participating physicians" in the Plan. Consistent with that relationship, Mrs. Schur was offered and accepted a "Contract for Obstetrical Services" (on January 27, 1998) which identified North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., as the entity through which Dr. Randolph would be providing obstetrical and post partum care. That agreement provided, inter alia, as follows: North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., provides total obstetrical and post partum care. This includes a physical examination and prenatal care, delivery of the infant and post partum care. Prenatal care includes all office visits and routine lab evaluation related to the pregnancy. Post partum care includes care for problems relating to the pregnancy or delivery and routine examinations, following the delivery up to 12 weeks. North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., agrees to provide availability of a licensed obstetrician on call 24 hours a day in case of emergency. The agreement further established a fee schedule for basic comprehensive obstetrical care, cesarean section, and other obstetrical services. On March 15, 1998, Dr. Randolph notified Mrs. Schur, as well as his other obstetrical patients, that he would no longer deliver babies, and that his "partner, Dr. Sam Christian," would provide that service. Thereafter, on March 23, 1998, Mrs. Schur had a prenatal visit with Dr. Christian (to decide whether she would accept him as her obstetrician) and decided not to continue her care with Dr. Christian (due to his increased patient load). Effective May 19, 1998, Mrs. Schur elected to transfer her obstetrical and post partum care to the offices of Drs. Rebecca Moorhead, Patricia Schroeder, and Marijane Q. Boyd, another small group practice affiliated with North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A. That office, known as North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., Beaches-Division II, was located in a professional office building adjacent to the building occupied by Doctors Randolph and Christian. While the group practice of Drs. Moorhead, Schroeder, and Boyd was affiliated with North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A. (North Florida), and they held themselves out to the public as North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., Beaches-Division II, as discussed more fully infra, the principles structured their business relationship through two separate professional associations. Regarding those associations, the proof demonstrated that Doctors Moorhead and Schroeder were employees of North Florida and Dr. Boyd was an employee (the sole employee) of Beaches Obstetrical and Gynecological Practice, Inc. (Beaches OB/GYN).6 Under the terms of a Management Services Agreement, effective August 1, 1997, North Florida (Drs. Moorhead and Schroeder/Beaches-Division II) and Beaches OB/GYN (Dr. Boyd) outlined the manner in which the group practice of Drs. Moorhead, Schroeder, and Boyd would be conducted, as well as how expenses and revenues would be shared. As structured, North Florida agreed to provide billing, administrative and other support services for Beaches OB/GYN (Dr. Boyd) and Beaches OB/GYN agreed that Dr. Boyd would provide her professional services. As compensation for North Florida's services, Beaches OB/GYN agreed to pay what was essentially one-third of the direct operating expenses incurred by North Florida in the operation of the group practice. As for revenue sharing, the agreement contemplated that North Florida and Beaches OB/GYN would receive a share of professional fees received based on the actual professional services provided by North Florida physicians (Drs. Moorhead and Schroeder) and Beaches OB/GYN's provider (Dr. Boyd). While Drs. Moorhead, Schroeder, and Boyd elected to structure their group practice through two professional associations, they otherwise did business as, and held themselves out to the public as, North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., Beaches-Division II. Notably, the signage on the front door so identified their practice, followed by the names of Drs. Moorhead, Schroeder, and Boyd; and, all paperwork of note likewise identified their practice as North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., Beaches-Division II. Indeed, Mrs. Schur was, at the time, unaware of any entity known as Beaches Obstetrical and Gynecological Practice, Inc.7 Finally, with regard to the manner in which the group practiced, the proof demonstrated that Drs. Moorhead, Schroeder, and Boyd, like many group practices, shared patients, with each patient (including Mrs. Schur) rotating her prenatal care through all three physicians, and shared calls, with each physician on call every third day and every third weekend. With such an arrangement, it was strictly a matter of chance which of the physicians (Drs. Moorhead, Schroeder, or Boyd), all of whom were participating physicians in the Plan, would deliver a patient's child. Regarding the notice issue, it is resolved that Mrs. Schur was provided timely notice that the physicians associated with North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., were participating physicians in the Plan, together with notice as to the limited no-fault alternative for birth-related neurological injuries provided by the Plan. Such conclusion is based on the more credible proof which demonstrates that on June 15, 1998, when Mrs. Schur presented to the offices of Drs. Moorhead, Schoder, and Boyd, that they had an established routine whereby on a patient's first office visit she would be provided the notice contemplated by Section 766.316, Florida Statutes. Here, consistent with that routine, the proof demonstrates that on such date, when she presented for her first office visit, Mrs. Schur was given a form titled NOTICE TO OBSTETRIC PATIENT, which provided: I have been furnished information by North Florida Obstetrics & Gynecology Associates, P.A. prepared by the Florida Birth Related Neurological Injury Compensation Association, and have been advised that North Florida Obstetrics & Gynecology Associates, P.A. is a participating practice 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), Barnett Bank Building, 315 South Calhoun Street, Suite 312, Tallahassee, Florida 32301, (904) 488-8191. I further acknowledge that I have received a copy of the brochure prepared by NICA. Dated this day of , 19 . Signature (NAME OF PATIENT) Social Security No.: Attest: (Nurse or Physician) Date: Rather than sign the form, Mrs. Schur wrote across it the words "received at Dr. Randolph's." At hearing, Mrs. Schur testified that, although she does not recall the incident, the best explanation she could offer for writing "received at Dr. Randolph's" instead of signing the form was that "someone would have had to tell me to do that . . . [since] I would not have known to write that on there." Such explanation is logical and credible; however, having accepted the explanation for why the entry was made, instead of signing the form, does not detract from the strong inference to be drawn from the entry. Indeed, having written the words "received at Dr. Randolph's" across the form is compelling evidence that, at the time, Mrs. Schur had a clear recollection that, during the period she was under the care of Dr. Randolph, she received notice that the physicians associated with North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., were participating physicians in the Plan, as well as a copy of the NICA brochure that described the NICA program.8 As further evidence that notice was given, it is observed that established routine at the offices of Drs. Moorhead, Schoder, and Boyd also mandated that when notice was given an item titled "NICA ", and contained within a checklist (titled Plans/Education) on a patient's prenatal record, receive a "?" in the space following the acronym NICA. Notably, at or about the same time Mrs. Schur wrote across the notice "received at Dr. Randolph's" the space following the acronym NICA was annotated to read "? c Dr. Randolph." Given Mrs. Schur's entry on the notice form ("received at Dr. Randolph's"), as well as the established routine, it is reasonable to conclude that such annotation was intended to reflect that Mrs. Schur had received NICA notice when she was a patient of Dr. Randolph.9 While the proof demonstrated that Mrs. Schur received notice, as contemplated by Section 766.316, Florida Statutes, that the physicians associated with North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, Inc., were participants in the Plan, it likewise demonstrated that no separate notice was provided that Dr. Boyd, either individually or as an employee of Beaches Obstetrical & Gynecological Practice, Inc., was a participant in the Plan. However, for reasons discussed in the Conclusions of Law which follow, such failure was harmless. The settlement agreement with Baptist Medical Center On June 20, 2001, Nicholas J. Schur and Lisa S. Schur, individually and as Personal Representatives of the Estate of Nicholas Erwin Schur (Claimants) and Baptist Medical Center of the Beaches, Inc., formally resolved all claims or potential claims of the Claimants against Baptist Medical Center and North Florida Obstetrical & Gynecological Associates, P.A., including those matters relating to the pending civil action in the Circuit Court, Duval County, Florida, Case No. 00-01458-CA, Division CV- C; however, the Claimants reserved all claims they had against Marijane Q. Boyd and Beaches Obstetrical and Gynecological Practice, Inc. As consideration for that settlement, the Claimants received the sum of $87,500 and the release and discharge of all claims Baptist Medical Center had against the Claimants arising from the care provided to Nicholas or Mrs. Schur.
Findings Of Fact Based upon the evidence adduced at the July 14, 1993, Division-conducted hearing in this case, and the record as a whole, the following Findings of Fact are made: Kathleen Behan is the natural daughter of Mary Lou and Gerald Behan. She was born on November 30, 1989, at Plantation General Hospital in Broward County, Florida. Her birth weight was in excess of 2500 grams. Kathleen was delivered by caesarian section performed by the family's obstetrician, Mariano J. Rodriguez, Jr., M.D., after her mother had experienced a spontaneous rupture of the fetal membrane. At the time of Kathleen's birth, Dr. Rodriguez was a participant in the Florida Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Plan. Kathleen had an Apgar score of 6 one minute after birth and an Apgar score of 9 five minutes after birth. Apgar scores reflect the attending physician's or nurse's assessment of the newborn infant's well-being based upon clinical observations regarding the infant's heart rate, respiratory effort, color, muscle tone, and reflexes. The higher the score, the greater the state of well being. The highest score attainable is a 10. Apgar scores are commonly used to determine if a newborn infant has suffered a neurological injury of a substantial and permanent nature during labor or delivery or in the immediate post-delivery process. Kathleen's Apgar scores are not consistent with her having suffered such a birth-related injury. After her condition was evaluated, Kathleen was taken from the delivery room to Plantation's "well-baby" nursery. She remained there without incident until December 2, 1989, when she was found asystolic in her crib after having experienced an acute life-threatening event or ALTE. Kathleen was resuscitated and survived the incident. She, however, has neurological impairment. The neurological impairment from which she now suffers was not the product of oxygen deprivation or mechanical injury that occurred during labor or delivery or in the immediate post-delivery period.
Findings Of Fact Maliyah Jones was born on May 28, 2013, at North Florida Regional Medical Center located in Gainesville, Florida. Maliyah weighed 3,870 grams at birth. Donald Willis, M.D. (Dr. Willis), was requested by NICA to review the medical records for Maliyah. In a medical report dated September 15, 2015, Dr. Willis opined as follows: In summary, delivery was complicated by a shoulder dystocia, which resulted in an Erb’s palsy. Although depressed at birth, the baby had a good response to resuscitation (bag and mask ventilation) with an Apgar score of 9 at five minutes. The baby’s condition was stated to be stable on admission to the NICU. The newborn hospital course was complicated only by the Erb’s palsy. Discharge was on DOL 2. There was no apparent obstetrical event that resulted in loss of oxygen or mechanical trauma to the baby’s brain during labor, delivery or the immediate post delivery period. NICA retained Laufey Y. Sigurdardottir, M.D. (Dr. Sigurdardottir), a pediatric neurologist, to examine Maliyah and to review her medical records. Dr. Sigurdardottir examined Maliyah on October 28, 2015. In a medical report regarding her independent medical examination of Maliyah, Dr. Sigurdardottir opined as follows: Summary: Maliyah is a 2-1/2 year-old born at term after an uncomplicated pregnancy with shoulder dystocia resulting in a near complete Erb’s palsy. She has required 2 surgical procedures and does have significant disability as per the Mallet scale and is likely to need more surgical procedures to enhance her functional abilities in her right upper extremity. She is, however, functioning well from a cognitive level and her gross motor skills are otherwise intact. In review of the medical records available, it seems clear that her right brachial plexopathy did occur at birth due to mechanical injury. In light of her favorable cognitive and language development our findings are the following: Result as to question 1: The patient is found to have a permanent physical impairment, but to have none or mild delays in language development. She is therefore not found to have a substantial mental and physical impairment at this time. * * * In light of the above-mentioned details, Maliyah’s restricted motor disability and near normal cognitive development, I do not recommend Maliyah to be included into the Neurologic Injury Compensation Association Program and would be happy to answer additional questions or review further medical records. In light of her favorable mental and developmental state it is doubtful that additional records would alter the outcome of our review. She is not felt to have a substantial mental impairment at this time. 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 that 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. Dr. Willis’ opinion is credited. There are no contrary expert opinions filed that are contrary to Dr. Sigurdardottir’s opinion that Maliyah is not found to have a substantial mental impairment at this time. Dr. Sigurdardottir’s opinion 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.
