HARRISBURG – Gettysburg Hospital and two of its employees deny allegations that they improperly delivered an infant who sustained severe neurological damage and continues to deal with related injuries.
Katerina Spangler and Christopher Turner (as parents and natural guardians of L.T., a minor, and individually in their own right) of Martinsburg, W.Va. filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania on Jan. 3 versus Charles H. Marks, D.O., Katherine E. Johnson, CNM and The Gettysburg Hospital (doing business as “Wellspan Gettysburg Hospital”), all of Gettysburg.
“On July 12, 2020 at 9:06 a.m., plaintiff Spangler was in labor with her first child, L.T., and presented to Gettysburg Hospital. At the time of her arrival at the hospital, she was dilated approximately 4-5 cm. During the course of her labor at Gettysburg Hospital, she was followed by Midwife Johnson and OBGYN physician Dr. Marks. Spangler’s dilation was progressing slowly, and a decision was made by Midwife Johnson and/or Dr. Marks to augment her labor by administering IV Pitocin. During Spangler’s labor, baby L.T.’s heart rate was monitored. Starting at around 1:24 p.m., the fetal heart rate (FHR) tracings started showing late decelerations, which are signs of fetal distress,” the suit said.
“At 2:56 p.m., a prolonged deceleration occurred, which again is a sign of fetal distress. Delivery is indicated when abnormal fetal heart rates affect the health of the unborn baby. A delay between the decision to deliver and delivery can significantly and permanently affect the health of the newborn. When there are concerning fetal heart rates, medical providers attending to the mother-to-be, must take interventions to improve uteroplacental perfusion and maternal/fetal oxygenation. Midwife Johnson and Dr. Marks failed to properly, timely and adequately appreciate, diagnose, treat, intervene and act upon these ‘warning signs’ of fetal distress during the course of Ms. Spangler’s labor.”
The suit added that in light of Spangler’s protracted dilation, the descent of baby L.T., and ongoing and worsening FHR tracings after 2:56 p.m., Midwife Johnson should have communicated with Dr. Marks and recommended delivery of L.T. – and that despite Spangler’s protracted dilation, the descent of baby L.T., and ongoing and worsening FHR tracings after 2:56 p.m., Dr. Marks should have ordered and performed an emergency C-section to deliver baby L.T.
Further, the suit continued that Midwife Johnson failed to call Dr. Marks to the patient’s bedside after prolonged decelerations were specifically noted, at around 2:56 p.m., 5:54 p.m., 7:12-7:15 p.m., and 10:12 p.m.
An infusion of Spangler’s Pitocin was continued by Midwife Johnson and Dr. Marks and at 10:31 p.m., the suit said, Spangler began pushing. While abnormal FHR tracings were said to have been noted, Midwife Johnson allegedly did not call Dr. Marks to the bedside to check position and evaluate FHR tracings.
Though the descent of baby L.T. was proving difficult by 9:48 p.m., a C-section was not recommended and/or ordered and/or performed. Late decelerations were again noted at 11 p.m. while Spangler was pushing, the suit explained, but Midwife Johnson allegedly still did not call and update Dr. Marks until 11:31 p.m. Pitocin again should have been stopped by this time, but it was not discontinued until 11:09 p.m.
“After recognizing the difficult of baby L.T.’s descent in the birth canal, Dr. Marks recommended to Ms. Spangler and Mr. Turner that he use forceps to deliver L.T. and said the forceps ‘would be no risk to the baby.’ With only that incomplete explanation of the risks and complications, the parents agreed to proceed. Dr. Marks failed to recognize that Ms. Spangler was not a candidate for forceps and deliver. More egregiously, Dr. Marks improperly applied the forceps on baby L.T., crushing his skull, head, face and eyes, which the new parents witnessed in horror. Delivery of baby L.T. occurred at 11:24 p.m.,” the suit stated.
“Due to baby L.T.’s severe injuries, he was transferred to Hershey Medical Center for further specialized care and management. During what otherwise should have been a joyous time for the Spangler/Turner family, who had been anxiously awaiting the arrival of their first child, defendants’ carelessness and negligence caused injuries and damages. These failures of defendants substantially increased the risk of harm to plaintiffs. Defendants, individually and/or jointly, are liable for the harm suffered by plaintiffs.”
UPDATE
On Sept. 14, the defendants answered the complaint and denied the plaintiffs’ allegations of receiving negligent medical care, finding the plaintiffs did “misinterpret, mischaracterize, or misstate the content of the [medical] records.”
“No conduct on the part of defendants was a substantial factor or factual cause of the alleged injuries or damages of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of laches. Plaintiffs’ claims may be barred in whole or in part by the applicable statute of limitations and/or statute of repose. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or reduced in part by the application of the doctrines of assumption of the risk, comparative negligence and/or contributory negligence. Any injuries or damages claimed by plaintiffs were caused by person or entities other than defendants and over whom defendants had no control or right of control. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred in whole or in part by the MCARE Act or the Healthcare Services Malpractice Act, and defendants hereby raise all affirmative defenses and other applicable provisions of both Acts. Defendants raise all rights, immunities and damages presented in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. At all relevant times, the care and treatment provided by defendants was commensurate with the applicable standard of care,” the answer’s new matter stated.
“Plaintiffs’ injuries were the result of preexisting medical conditions, and/or causes beyond the control of defendants, and/or were unavoidable. To the extent the evidence reveals that defendants elected a treatment modality that is recognized as proper, but that may differ from another modality, the defense of the Two Schools of Thought Doctrine is hereby raised. Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the doctrine of consent. Plaintiffs’ claims, which are specifically denied, may be reduced and/or limited by any collateral source of compensation and/or benefit. Plaintiffs’ injuries were caused by underlying medical condition(s), natural disease process and/or non-negligent complications and/or side effects of appropriate treatment and therapies and not caused by any act or omission of defendants. Plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state claims upon which relief can be granted. Plaintiffs’ injuries, if any, may be the result of a superseding and/or intervening cause.”
For multiple counts of negligence, corporate negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress, the plaintiffs are seeking, jointly and severally, for all actual and compensatory damages in an amount in excess of the prevailing federal arbitration limit, and for any other further relief as this Honorable Court and/or jury may deem just and proper.
The plaintiffs are represented by Derek R. Layser of Friedman Schuman, in Fort Washington.
The defendants are represented by Shaun J. Mumford and Abigail Wenger of Saxton & Stump, in Lancaster.
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania case 1:22-cv-01091
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com