Appellate Court renders decision that will have a major impact on medical malpractice cases involving injuries to a child during birth known as Erb's Palsy

According to an article in the New York Law Journal (NYLJ) accompanying the decision, it was stated that the rejection of a scientifically invalid standard defense in obstetrical medical malpractice cases "may be a national first".

In a memorandum decision rendered by the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, it was held that the Supreme Court did not abuse its discretion in precluding testimony that the injury caused to plaintiff's infant daughter during birth was the result of "the birthing process".

Here the infant sustained injuries during birth [Erb's Palsy, also known as brachial plexus injury] and plaintiff sued alleging that the injuries to the child were caused by excessive force used by the doctors during the delivery. The defendants sought to introduce testimony that it was the birthing process itself [the "maternal forces of labor" theory] and not any action by the doctors that caused the injury.

In discussing the application of Frye v. United States (293 F 1013 [involving the admissibility of expert testimony of generally accepted scientific principles]) the court noted that "we agree with the plaintiff that the defendants' theory that the claimed injuries to her daughter were sustained as a result of the birthing process was a novel theory subject to a Frye analysis, and that the defendants failed to rebut plaintiff's showing that their theory was not generally accepted within the relevant medical community."

Muhammad v. Fitzpatrick, Appellate Division, Fourth Dept., Decided 1/31/12

See, NYLJ, 2/8/12, 1:3, Court Finds Invalid Standard Defense in Obstetrical Malpractice Cases