Newborn died within hours after doctor used ‘vacuum-assisted' delivery method, his ‘permanently wounded' parents claim
A newborn suffered a 'short life and prolonged death ' – within hours of his birth – after a Texas doctor attempted a vacuum-assisted delivery, according to a lawsuit.
The lawsuit, filed May 29 against the doctor, unnamed nurses, Kessler Women's Healthcare and the Methodist Dallas Medical Center, claims they were negligent in trying to deliver the child vaginally in April 2024, The Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.
According to the suit, the boy, who was named Prime, died of internal brain bleeding caused by his delivery method, but may have lived if the doctor had performed a Cesarean section earlier, instead of attempting to deliver him via vacuum-assisted delivery.
The baby's parents, both teachers, headed to the hospital on April 4, 2024, when the 32-year-old mother's water broke, according to the lawsuit.
According to the lawsuit, the doctor the family had been seeing was not the one to deliver the baby.
While preparing to give birth, Prime's heart rate became abnormal and his mom was diagnosed with preeclampsia, a dangerous complication characterized by high blood pressure. She also had a 102.9 fever, according to the filing.
These risk factors, in addition to the baby's large head size and weight, meant the mother would likely have to receive a Cesarean section, the lawsuit claims.
However, instead of delivering the baby via C-section, the doctor decided to try vacuum-assisted delivery for a vaginal birth. The process involves using a suction-cup device that attaches to the baby's head to try and help the child down the birth canal, according to the lawsuit.
The doctor on call tried to deliver Prime four times, but the suction popped off twice, the family said.
The father 'recounted the very 'loud sound' produced by the pop-offs and noted that the force was so significant that it caused (the doctor) to push the chair backwards in the delivery room, suggesting that (she) exerted considerable force during the pulls,' the lawsuit says.
Once the newborn was delivered, he was taken to the neonatal intensive care unit.
When the mom saw what her son's neck looked like post-birth, 'she wanted to burst into tears,' the filing claims.
Prime 'suffered' for 24 hours before he died, according to the filing, which described those hours as a 'short life and prolonged death.'
The lawsuit claims the OB-GYN told the family their baby died from an E. coli infection he caught during labor. However, the doctor who conducted the autopsy found his real cause of death was brain hemorrhages from failed vacuum-assisted delivery.
'Permanently wounded, the couple for days, weeks and months have broken down and cried, often uncontrollably,' the lawsuit says. 'Prime's loss has haunted them with nightmares, sleeplessness and intrusive thoughts. Daily life was permanently altered for both, though, they will try to move forward.'
Another doctor who was conducting an independent review told the parents Prime may have been born 'healthy and whole' had a C-section been performed sooner, according to the filing.
The lawsuit blames the doctor and nurses for not recognizing the baby's distress during labor and taking the appropriate steps sooner.
The family also claims in the suit that the doctor never told them of the risks of vacuum-assisted delivery.
The couple is seeking damages, claiming negligence, lack of informed consent and their son's wrongful death, according to the report.
Methodist Health System said in a statement that it has a 'longstanding policy of not commenting on pending litigation.'
The doctor involved told The Dallas Morning News that she couldn't comment on specific patients, but said, 'I will simply say that I am committed to providing the highest quality medical care possible to my patients.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Breakthrough blood test detects cancer years before symptoms appear
Scientists have developed a 'highly sensitive' blood test that could detect signs of cancerous tumours years before the first symptoms appear, an advance that could lead to better treatment outcomes for patients. Researchers from the Johns Hopkins University in the US found that genetic material shed by tumours can be detected in the bloodstream much before patients get their first diagnosis. The study, published in the journal Cancer Discovery, found that these genetic mutations caused by cancer, can be detected in the blood over three years in advance for some patients. 'Three years earlier provides time for intervention. The tumours are likely to be much less advanced and more likely to be curable,' said study co-author Yuxuan Wang. In the research, scientists assessed blood plasma samples collected from participants of a large NIH-funded study to investigate risk factors for heart attack, stroke, heart failure and other cardiovascular diseases. Researchers developed highly accurate and sensitive genome sequencing techniques to analyse blood samples from 52 of the earlier study's participants. Twenty-six of the participants were diagnosed with cancer within six months after sample collection, and 26 who were not diagnosed served as the control group for comparison. Eight of the 52 participants scored positively in a multicancer early detection (MCED) laboratory test conducted at the time their blood samples were taken. The MCED test is designed to detect multiple cancers in their early stages from a single blood sample by analysing cancer-signature molecules in the blood, including DNA and proteins. All eight were diagnosed with cancer within four months following blood collection. For six of these 8 participants, additional blood samples were collected about 3 to 3.5 years before cancer diagnosis. In four of these cases, mutations linked to tumour growth could be identified in their earlier blood samples. The findings point to 'the promise of MCED tests in detecting cancers very early', researchers say. It may lead to more standardised blood tests to screen people either annually or every two years, which could boost early detection and prevent cancers from becoming treatment-resistant tumours. 'These results demonstrate that it is possible to detect circulating tumour DNA more than three years prior to clinical diagnosis, and provide benchmark sensitivities required for this purpose,' scientists wrote. 'Detecting cancers years before their clinical diagnosis could help provide management with a more favourable outcome,' said Nickolas Papadopoulos, another author of the study. Scientists hope the findings can be validated in a larger-scale trial involving more participants.
The Independent
4 hours ago
- The Independent
Judge deems some of Trump's National Institutes of Health grant cuts illegal
Donald Trump's administration broke the law when it terminated more than $1 billion in medical research grants the president claimed were linked to "DEI", a federal court has ruled. In a blistering judgement issued on Monday, District Judge William Young — a Reagan appointee — said he had "never seen a record where racial discrimination was so palpable" in his 40 years as a jurist. He ordered the government to immediately reinstate numerous National Institutes of Health research grants canceled as part of Trump's war against any program perceived to favor people of color, transgender people, or other minorities. "You are bearing down on people of color because of their color," Young told the defendants. "The Constitution will not permit that... have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?' The lawsuit blocks a small portion of the 2,100 research grants that Trump has canceled — representing a total of about $9.5bn in funding — with other grants to be decided later. A spokesperson for the Department of Health and Human Services, NIH's parent agency, said it was "exploring all legal options" and might appeal the judgement. "HHS stands by its decision to end funding for research that prioritized ideological agendas over scientific rigor and meaningful outcomes for the American people,", the spokesperson said. Judge Young's ruling concerned two separate lawsuits that were heard together, one by a coalition of academic researchers and unions led by the American Public Health Association and one by a group of Democrat-led states. The scientists' lawsuit argued that NIH had violated its usual science-based review process, as well as federal regulations and specific orders from Congress to fund research into health disparities. The grants varied widely in topic, from cardiovascular health through alcohol abuse in minors to the differing impact of certain medications on different racial groups. The Trump administration has claimed that it is slashing "DEI" initiatives because they discriminate against other Americans by unfairly privileging minorities. In court, Trump's lawyers said that the NIH's grant cuts were "sufficiently reasoned" and that the agency has "broad discretion" to offer or rescind grants "in alignment with its priorities". But Judge Young held that although the Trump administration had a legal right to "extirpate affirmative action" if it saw fit, the grant cancelations had been "arbitrary and capricious" and broken government rules.
Daily Mail
4 hours ago
- Daily Mail
How Trump's pride and joy is set to cause 13,000 preventable deaths... are you at risk?
Health experts are sounding the alarm over the president's One Big Beautiful Bill, estimating the proposed cuts to government-funded health insurance could lead to the needless deaths of thousands. The bill, which is expected to be passed July 4, would slash Medicaid coverage, reimbursement and funding by $793 billion over 10 years, as well as implement restrictive requirements for benefits. This gutting of the federal insurance program is estimated to have big implications for the 71 million people enrolled in Medicaid. Now, an in-depth study led by Dr Adam Gaffney, an assistant professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, concluded it could undermine the coverage, financial well-being, medical care, and health of low-income Americans, resulting in up to 12,600 medically preventable deaths annually. And an even higher mounting death toll would occur off the back of necessary healthcare services being reduced for vulnerable populations. This could include, for instance, those battling chronic conditions like heart disease, HIV, and cancer, who rely on regular, low-cost medication and treatment. Supporters of the bill say it will cut taxes, help boost the economy and increase take-home pay. But critics argue the bill primarily benefits the wealthy and could lead to increased national debt. The researchers warn: 'Today, despite its many shortcomings, Medicaid enjoys wide support from the electorate and serves as the foundation of the nation's health care safety net. 'The cuts under consideration, intended to offset the cost of tax cuts that would predominantly benefit wealthier Americans, would strip care from millions and likely lead to thousands of medically preventable deaths.' Researchers identified six potential Medicaid cuts that the House of Representatives ' Budget Committee estimates would each reduce the federal government's Medicaid outlays by at least $100billion over 10 years. They include reduction of the Medicaid matching floor; reduced funding of the Affordable Care Act's Medicaid Expansion; Medicaid per capita caps; Medicaid work requirements; reduced Medicaid provider taxes; and repeal of the Biden-era Medicaid eligibility rule. The measure includes exceptions for those who are under 19 or over 64, those with disabilities, pregnant women, main caregivers for young children, people recently released from prisons or jails or during certain emergencies. It would apply only to adults who receive Medicaid through expansions that 40 states chose to undertake as part of the 2010 health insurance overhaul, which expanded eligibility and created a national minimum income threshold. The team also assessed the overall effects of the current House bill, which includes three of the six options along with multiple smaller policy changes, such as shortening the duration of Medicaid's retroactive coverage and increasing cost-sharing for some Medicaid enrollees. The researchers project that individually, these six Medicaid cuts would lead to an annual increase of between 651 and 12,626 medically preventable deaths. These cuts would increase the number of uninsured Americans by between 600,000 and 3.9 million, and the annual number of people foregoing needed medical care will range from 129,060 to 838,890. It could lead to 1.9 million people losing their personal doctor, 1.3 million foregoing needed medications and 380,270 women going without a mammogram. The authors assert that policy makers should weigh the likely health and financial harms to patients and providers of reducing Medicaid expenditures against the desirability of tax reductions, which would benefit mostly wealthy Americans. Under the current proposal, childless adults without disabilities who want Medicaid coverage would have to prove that they had worked, volunteered or attended school for 80 hours in the month enrolling. But if you have a medically diagnosed illness or disability that prevents you from working, you may be exempt from Medicaid work requirements. This exemption falls under the category of being 'medically frail' or having 'special medical needs'. Many details of the bill have yet to be ironed out, leaving beneficiaries with a host of unknowns and causing worry that their illnesses might not be enough to exempt them from the work requirements. Advocates and sick and disabled enrollees also worry that even those who might be exempted from work requirements under the law could still lose benefits because of increased or hard-to-meet paperwork mandates. A tracking poll conducted by health policy research firm Kaiser Fund Foundation in May found that the enrollees come from across the political spectrum, including those who voted for Trump. About one-fourth are Republicans; roughly one-third are Democrats. The poll found that about seven in 10 adults are worried that federal spending reductions on Medicaid will lead to more uninsured people and would strain health care providers in their area. About half said they were worried reductions would hurt the ability of them or their family to get and pay for health care. Amaya Diana, an analyst at KFF, points to work requirements launched in Arkansas and Georgia as keeping people off Medicaid without increasing employment. Amber Bellazaire, a policy analyst at the Michigan League for Public Policy, said the process to verify that Medicaid enrollees meet the work requirements could be a key reason people would be denied or lose eligibility. 'Massive coverage losses just due to an administrative burden rather than ineligibility is a significant concern,' she said. Republicans have suggested a work requirement similar to the conditions for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program - food stamps. Those ages 16 to 59 must work or volunteer at least 80 hours a month if they are not in school, caring for a child under age six, disabled, pregnant or homeless. Republicans say, however, the requirement could motivate people to find employment — maybe even a job that comes with health insurance. Other cuts on the table include a proposal to change TO the federal government's reimbursement, which would shift the costs to states, forcing them to make tough choices about who or what they cover. Joan Alker, executive director of the Georgetown Center for Children and Families, SAID: 'People still have health care needs even if you cut their coverage. Their health care needs are not going to go away.'
