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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT