C is a 26 year old woman who suffers quadriplegic cerebral palsy [1]
C was born at about 01.03 hours on 3 February 1996. She was a twin and her sister was born about 1 hour before her. As a result of acute
profound hypoxic ischaemia, which she suffered before and for three minutes after her birth, she has cerebral palsy. [5]
C’s case that her mother requested caesarean section (CS) but her requests were refused or delayed. In addition C asserts that her mother was never offered elective caesarean section (ECS) despite (on her case) such being a
reasonable treatment and additionally that when the hospital finally decided to deliver C by CS the operation was carried out negligently late and therefore the
acute profound hypoxic ischaemia which C was enduring in the last minutes of her time in the womb before birth and for 3 minutes after her birth was not avoided or ameliorated as it should have been. [6]
Ds’ case that in 1996 ECS was not a reasonable treatment option to offer during the antenatal period, so it was not offered, that offering and advising normal vaginal delivery was the correct practice and that the Claimant’s mother did
not request caesarean section antenatally. In addition the 1st Defendant asserts there was no negligence during the labour and the parents’ requests for CS were granted in a timely way. [6]
C is entitled to recover 100% of the damage caused by the PHI she suffered using the material contribution test. [406]
medicalnegligencenow.com 