Jury rules against Montana woman's wrongful-birth lawsuit

[Judi Lynn]

Source: Associated Press

Jury rules against Montana woman's wrongful-birth lawsuit

Updated 12:50 am, Friday, February 12, 2016

BOZEMAN, Mont. (AP) — A Montana jury ruled Thursday against a woman who sought millions of dollars from health care providers that she said failed to diagnose her unborn daughter's cystic fibrosis.

Kerrie Evans of Gardiner had testified that she would have had an abortion if she had known her daughter, who is now 5 years old, would be born with the genetic disease. The mucus cells of a cystic fibrosis patient produce a thick and sticky fluid that damages the lungs and digestive system. While each case is different, many patients now live to be adults with proper treatment and care.

Evans' lawsuit, filed in 2011, initially sought $14.5 million in damages, including $10 million for her daughter's medical care. However, during closing statements, Evans' attorneys asked for just over $2.5 million, the Bozeman Daily Chronicle (http://bit.ly/1PpQbVx ) reported.

Jurors deliberated for about two hours before finding that nurse practitioner Peggy Scanson of Livingston and Dr. William Peters of Bozeman did not depart from the standard of care in their prenatal treatment of Evans.

Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Jury-rules-against-Montana-woman-s-wrongful-birth-6824685.php

[cynzke]

1. Legislators in Some States....

have proposed laws that would allow doctors to keep vital health information about unborn children from their parents if they think that would influence the mother to get an abortion. In this case, was there any evidence that the doctor and nurse diagnosed cystic fibrosis in the fetus and deliberately kept that info from the mother? How ethically wrong is it to do that? Imagine the excitement over the span on nine months, expecting to deliver a healthy baby, only to be shocked and disappointed that your baby has a serious LIFELONG health issue and will require constant expensive care. You face the dilemma as to who will take care of your child if something happens to you. And THEN you find out that the DOCTOR knew about this and KEPT IT FROM YOU. That should be a crime, at least punishable in a lawsuit. But if legislators make this legal, parents will be denied justice even in a civil court. OUTRAGEOUS!

[LisaL]

2. What does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

There is no suggestion that doctor and nurse she sued knew about fetus having cystic fibrosis.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. It doesn't sound like that happened in this case

She acknowledged under cross examination that she did not read a cystic fibrosis pamphlet she received during her first appointment with Scanson. The pamphlet said the first step would be a blood test to determine if the mother was a carrier for the disease. If so, the father would be tested. If both were carriers, there would be a 25 percent chance of them having a child with the disease.

Attorneys for Scanson and Peters noted that both of those blood tests would have to be run before the lab doing the genetic testing would know which of the hundreds of mutations of cystic fibrosis to test for. Peters said he offered carrier screening to Evans before performing the CVS, but she declined.

"She ignored what she was given" John Scully, Scanson's attorney, said during closing statements. "She ignored what she was told. And now she's here blaming others."

[Yo_Mama]

15. She was informed of the specific screening and did not opt for it. So no one knew.

Cystic fibrosis is not easy to diagnose - read the article.

You are banging your drum, but it has nothing to do with this. Also, laws such as you describe are unconstitutional.

[restorefreedom]

4. if she opted out of genetic testing/counseling that was offered,

then its on her. a dr can't diagnose a condition without test results, and she did not get the test.

[LisaL]

5. Exactly.

She admitted she didn't even read the pamphlet on cystic fibrosis she was given. How is the doctor supposed to know the fetus had cystic fibrosis? And why aren't these types of lawsuits thrown out before they even reach the court?

[restorefreedom]

6. your last comment is what i don't understand...why even take it to court?

shouldn't even be wasting the court's time.

its a no go, unless we can sue for drs not being mind readers.....

[eggplant]

11. Money is money. I'm sure the care isn't cheap.

[restorefreedom]

13. i see an insurance settlement with no admission of culpability. nt

[eggplant]

22. Yep.

[LisaL]

24. She already lost her lawsuit.

Why in the world would insurance settle with her?

[restorefreedom]

25. then i guess she is SOL nt

[LisaL]

26. What money? She didn't get any.

Sure doesn't look like she had a case to begin with. She didn't do the test. Doctor couldn't predict her child would have cystic fibrosis.

[eggplant]

28. I was answering a question.

Namely, why she would even bother suing. I'm sure her attorney took it on contingency, so it didn't cost her anything to roll the dice.

[Yo_Mama]

18. Well, it seemed like the attorney was trying to get the ins co to settle to avoid costs.

Ask for 14 million, settle for a million. Ins co got mad and said no way.

Attorney ought to be before a court, IMO. This sort of crap costs us all money.

The attorney is supposed to be an officer of the court.

[TexasBushwhacker]

30. Attorneys know that a parent w/ a sick child is sympathetic

There are some juries who would have awarded her something because it's hard to say no to a parent of a sick child. They figure the doctor's insurance would be paying, so it was no big deal.

However, a mother saying she wished she had terminated the pregnancy doesn't come off as all that sympathetic in the minds of at least some of the jurors.

[Dustlawyer]

7. While the decision in this case may rightfully go against the mother based on other facts,

the point would be that actual withholding of facts about the unborn child so the parents can make an informed decision is what is at stake here.

I had a child born with Cystic Fibrosis (CF) 2 months after getting my law license. His birth cost me my job because I had 2 other young children and one parent was required to be at the hospital at all times. We had to depend on government aid for the high cost of his digestive enzymes and breathing treatments. I had to file bankruptcy for the 2 million in medical debt and school loans. I was forced to take a job with a crazy solo practitioner for much less money. Every dollar I made over $33,000 went to the government. It changed the whole course of my career and life was extremely hard.

I would do it all over again because I loved my little buddy who past away in 1993. That is somewhat selfish of me because his was a life of pain, but there was also great joy! This is a complex issue, but people should be told what the doctors know, when they know it.

[cstanleytech]

8. Where was something deliberately withheld from her by the doctor?

[Dustlawyer]

9. Dont know, thats why I said the case may have rightfully gone against her on other facts.

[cstanleytech]

12. Then why write

"the point would be that actual withholding of facts about the unborn child so the parents can make an informed decision is what is at stake here." unless the doctor actually withheld something?

[Dustlawyer]

14. I guess that I was not clear enough.

This particular case is probably not the best one to make the point that, in general, a doctor should give his/her patients full disclosure of what they know about the fetus so that the mother and father can make an informed decision on whether to terminate the pregnancy.

In this case there are allegations that the doctor did let her know and she ignored it. If that is indeed the case, then I think that the doctor should not be held accountable.

[Yo_Mama]

17. You are completely WRONG. No ONE KNEW. Her claim was that she wasn't offered screening.

During the trial she admitted she lied about that on the stand:

Evans testified last week that she was not given any information on cystic fibrosis carrier screening and that she believed the chorionic villus sampling test she requested would indicate whether her unborn child had Down syndrome or cystic fibrosis. If those tests had been positive, "I would have had an abortion," Evans told jurors.

She acknowledged under cross examination that she did not read a cystic fibrosis pamphlet she received during her first appointment with Scanson. The pamphlet said the first step would be a blood test to determine if the mother was a carrier for the disease. If so, the father would be tested. If both were carriers, there would be a 25 percent chance of them having a child with the disease.

Attorneys for Scanson and Peters noted that both of those blood tests would have to be run before the lab doing the genetic testing would know which of the hundreds of mutations of cystic fibrosis to test for. Peters said he offered carrier screening to Evans before performing the CVS, but she declined.

The reason I am harping on this is that I just don't believe that there is any jury anywhere in the country that is not going to find for the plaintifff who has a screening and then is not told of the results. Regardless of one's personal feelings about abortion, that's flat-out fraud and the worst sort of negligence.

In this case, there is written proof that she was offered screening. She chose not to take the blood tests necessary for CF screening.

What the NP and doctor said was that they both offered her the CF screening, and since there was a written pamphlet given to her, that seems to close the issue.

Juries are sympathetic, esp. to the child who needs the care. But in this case, the woman just didn't take the necessary steps to complete the screening.

A doctor who doesn't fully disclose what he/she knows is committing the worst sort of malpractice. I am AWED about what you apparently believe about the medical system.

[Dustlawyer]

19. Are you just looking for a fight?

I said "There are ALLEGATIONS that he told her, and if true, i dont think he would be liable!

I also said that doctors should tell the parents what they know so the parents can make an informed decision on whether they wanted the pregnancy terminated.

I never claimed to know about this particular case other than this post. I am speaking in a general sense, not about this case in particular.

Did you even read what I have posted? I HAVE AGREED WITH YOU!!!!!

[Yo_Mama]

20. You've confused others. I would hate to have people believe that

doctors are allowed to not tell patients about what fetal screening reveals.

That's just terrifying, not to mention flat-out criminal. Because there are risks to this procedure - very small, but genuine.
http://americanpregnancy.org/prenatal-testing/chorionic-villus-sampling/

What you SEEMED to be saying is that there is need of a case to ensure that doctors and nurses must tell patients what they know about the fetal status.

I'm saying you are wrong. Forget the courts. Anyone who didn't would lose their license to practice and would never, ever get malpractice insurance again even if they got their license back at some point. Even if there were medical practicioners so malign, evil and vicious to do unnecessary testing that carried real although small risks, such a person would definitely pass along the information to protect him/herself.

This is the type of explanation given regarding CF screening:
http://www.hopkinscf.org/what-is-cf/diagnosis/testing/prenatal-screening/

It doesn't always work either, because not all mutations are known and tested for:
http://www.hopkinscf.org/what-is-cf/diagnosis/testing/cftr-mutation-analysis/

[Dustlawyer]

27. My son that had CF was put through literally hundreds of unnecessary test because

his dad is a lawyer. I do not handle Med mal cases, never did, but if I wanted my son treated we both had to put up with it. Some doctors perform extra tests to make more money. The big scam has been with their ownership of testing facilities like MRI's. The number of MRI's being ordered skyrocketed once they had a stake in the testing. Another reason for Universal Health Care!

There is no magic wand that tells doctors everything that is wrong with a fetus. If they know the baby will have Downs Syndrome or brain damage, some parents cannot deal with the lifetime commitment. They should tell them what they know, that's all I am saying.

I know about CF screening, went through it, I don't need the article, thanks.

[cstanleytech]

29. Its late here and Im going to bed in a bit but I still find it difficult to grasp how is any

that relevant to this womans claims which were proven to be false?

[cstanleytech]

21. Probably not the best? Ya, considering its not relevant since

her own testimony has her admitting the doctor spoke to her and provided information on CF I will agree with you that this probably was not the best case to try and use an example at all.

[Yo_Mama]

16. What's at stake is that no info was withheld and she did not have the bloodtest(s)

required.

Any sort of accuracy requires testing both parents, and that can be a problem for single mothers.

I am very sorry for what you went through, and the loss of your child. But no information was withheld. I am sure this poor woman just didn't think of it as a risk.

[bananas]

23. Thank you for adding your personal story.

This place can be very contentious.

[Rebubula]

10. Wow....poor child

To have this disease and to know her mother would have aborted her.