ILNews

Medical malpractice

June 23, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Trial Report

Jason Cole Sr., as Personal Representative of the Estates of Patricia Harris Cole and Baby Jason Cole Jr. v. Joseph M. Smith, M.D.

Wayne Circuit Court No. 89C01–0103-CT001

Injuries: Wrongful death of 34-week-old fetus

Date:
March 26, 2010

Judge or Jury Trial:
Jury trial

Judge: Hon. David Kolger

Disposition: $1.1 million

Plaintiff Attorneys:
Jason R. Reese and Stephen M. Wagner, Wagner Reese & Crossen

Defendant Attorneys:
Kirk Bagrowski and Louis Voelker, Eichhorn & Eichhorn

Insurance: Pro Assurance

Case Information: A Wayne County jury returned a verdict of $1.1 million in favor of the plaintiff and against a Richmond OB/GYN in this medical malpractice action. It was a 5-day jury trial before Judge David Kolger. The plaintiff, Jason Cole Sr., claimed that the defendant failed to comply with the applicable standard of medical care and that his negligence was a factor in causing the death of baby Jason Cole Jr. (then 34-weeks gestation).

The issues facing the jury were: (1) whether the defendant was negligent in ordering a “stress test” a/k/a OCT test in lieu of a non-stress test a/k/a a biophysical profile; (2) whether any act or omission by the defendant caused the death of the infant; and (3) whether baby Jason was born alive or stillborn.

The defendant argued that the OCT test met the standard of care, the alleged acts of the defendant did not cause the death of the infant, and the infant was stillborn, thus limiting any damages to emotional distress of the mother only.

The defense made no settlement offers.

Just before trial plaintiff offered to settle all claims for $100,000.

The case involved the death of a 34-week-old baby when the mom presented to Reid Hospital on Jan. 27, 2001, complaining of lower abdominal pain, lower back pain, and decreased fetal movement.

The experts agreed that pathology showed mom had a severe placental abruption which began before her presentation to the hospital. All of the experts and the three treating doctors agreed that the baby was alive, but in danger, when mom presented to the hospital.

The defendant did not review the entire chart which indicated “possible fetal compromise,” but instead testified that he obtained his information directly from the nurse, the mom, and other treating doctor. Despite the non-reassuring fetal heart rate tracings, he ordered the stress test instead of a non-stress test.

The defense expert, Dr. David Kiley, testified that there was no deviation in the standard of care by the defendant and that, even if there were, there was nothing that could have been done to change the outcome – the baby would have died anyway as a result of the severe placenta abruption that had existed long before mom presented to the hospital.

The jury deliberated for 2 hours, 15 minutes before rendering a verdict.

Even more tragic was the fact the baby’s mother was never able to see justice through the legal system. On July 14, 2006, approximately 5 1/2 years after her baby died, Patricia Harris Cole died in an unrelated car accident in Richmond. This made presentation of damages very difficult. “Trish” is survived by her husband, Jason Cole Sr., and her three other children.•

– Jason R. Reese
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  2. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  3. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT