Andrew I. Kaplan, Esq

In a case with multiple defendants, coordinating defenses should be the primary objective for trial.

When a plaintiff brings forth a specious claim, constant pressure from the defense is key.

In this case, the question of fetal well-being as demonstrated on the FHR tracing is significant.

Informed consent and surgical route are the main focuses of this case.

A pregnant patient in recovery from a cerclage was given oxytocin because of preset electronic orders.

A family history of uterine cancer prompted the patient to seek a hysterectomy.

Plaintiff alleged that excessive force from implementing the vacuum resulted in intracranial hemorrhage and subdural hematoma.

The plaintiff alleged that the infant’s injuries were caused by traumatic damage during delivery; specifically, from the vacuum extractor. The plaintiff’s argument was that when the vacuum extractor pulled on the infant’s head it caused damage, evidenced by the intraventricular bleed.

Despite counseling, a patient is reluctant to follow her MFM specialist's advice.

During laparoscopic hysterectomy, injury to adjacent organs is a known complication. But the inability to explain the mechanism of surgery and the complications that occur postoperatively often make risks difficult to defend in court.