Virginia Appeals Court Nixes $2.5 Million Jury Award Against Anesthesiologist

A Virginia appellate court has ordered a new trial in a malpractice case in which a jury awarded a $2.5 million in damages against a doctor for alleged failure to properly administer anesthesia to a woman undergoing an emergency caesarian delivery.

Elizabeth Bandy claimed she endured physical pain and emotional distress during the birth of her child due to negligence by Dr. Mirza Baig of Reston Anesthesia Associates.

However, Baig insists that the actions of the doctor who performed the caesarian (C-section) were the superseding cause of Bandy’s physical pain and emotional distress. He maintains that the other doctor decided to begin the caesarean operation without the benefit of Baig’s anesthesia services.

A superseding cause is an independent event, not reasonably foreseeable, that completely breaks the connection between the defendant’s negligent act and the plaintiff’s injury. The trial court denied the instruction on superseding cause because it said the instruction was “confusing” because it would imply that Hodgson’s decision to proceed with the C-section was not a reasonably foreseeable incident in this case. The trial court maintained that the C-section was “going to happen,” “was going to be necessary,” and on that basis, determined that the “instruction does not do anything other than create confusion for the jury.”

The Court of Appeals has ruled that the lower trial court was in error erred in denying Baig the right to present a defense and argue that the other doctor’s unforeseeable actions constituted a superseding cause and for failing to instruct the jury on superseding cause. The intermediate appellate court agreed there was enough evidence to support Baig’s position of an unforeseeable superseding cause and that the trial court should have let the jury considered it.

The Court of Appeals noted that Hodgson knew Baig was on his way to the delivery room to administer the anesthesia and only a minute away. When he arrived, Baig attached required monitoring devices to the patient and administered sevoflurane and propofol to place Bandy under general anesthesia. However, Hodgson did not wait for the anesthesia to take effect before making the final incision into the uterus and delivering the baby. Defense experts’ testified that there was no medical emergency to justify Hodgson’s acting without waiting for the anesthesia.

Hodgson, who appeared as a witness for Bandy, acknowledged the people on the operating room team “were upset” after the event. During a debrief, Hodgson lamented, “I just assaulted that patient,” and admitted that he had never performed a caesarian delivery without anesthesia.

According to Hodgson’s testimony, after the painful delivery, Bandy had an uncomplicated post-operative and postpartum course and the baby was fine. Ultimately, in her complaint, Bandy alleged that Baig caused her physical pain and emotional distress by, among other things, “failing to timely and properly administer anesthesia services.”

However, the Court of Appeals said issues of negligence and proximate causation ordinarily are questions of fact for the jury and there was ample evidence to support Baig’s account of what happened.

Topics Virginia