At the Vienna Regional Court for Civil Law Matters (ZRS) the fate of a now three-year-old girl was heard on Thursday, whose birth in a Viennese clinic had complications. The umbilical cord was wrapped around her neck, resulting in a lack of oxygen and a stop in the heartbeat. The newborn was postnatally without any signs of life, had to be resuscitated and is severely handicapped.
The child cannot eat by itself and is fed through a tube. The three-year-old suffers from epilepsy, which means that she sometimes has to be hospitalized for weeks in a hospital due to seizures. Seizures occur again and again. She cannot sit by herself and will probably never be able to walk or speak.
In this context, the person affected and their parents sued the obstetrician – an experienced specialist in gynecology – and his insurance company. The legal representative of the family, the Viennese lawyer and human medicine specialist Astrid Hartmann, accuses the doctor of a chain of serious medical errors. The experienced gynecologist should have recognized from the recordings of the labor recorder that the unborn child’s heart rate was wrong and should have started the delivery immediately. The mother – a 38-year-old woman at the time – had an epidural catheter inserted instead of having an urgently required caesarean section.
In their lawsuit, the family asserts, in addition to pain and care costs, the costs of renting a ground floor apartment, installing a lift and enlarging their apartment by buying the neighboring apartment. The mother of the three-year-old claims that the hospital reacted far too late to the unborn child’s increasingly weaker heartbeat. The CTG – a procedure that simultaneously records the baby’s heart rate in the abdomen and the labor activity – was already suspect from 6:55 p.m., the gynecologist did not immediately set the emergency chain in motion, no cesarean section (technical term for caesarean section, note). initiated or other necessary medical measures taken. Her daughter was only born after 9 p.m. by means of a vacuum extraction with no signs of life and had to be resuscitated several times.
The doctor denies the allegation that he committed a “malpractice”. Despite being informed, the mother refused to perform a caesarean section, his lawyer Susanne Kurtev (Rast Musliu law firm) said in the run-up to today’s hearing. The mother-to-be told her midwife in advance that she was an advocate of “natural birth,” said Kurtev.
The mother’s legal representative firmly rejected this representation. The mother never spoke out against a caesarean section.
After one and a half hours of debate at the ZRS about an out-of-court solution, which failed primarily because of the co-defendant insurance company, an evidence procedure was set in motion that should at least extend well into 2022. The insurance company took the position that one could not “pay millions without an actuarial calculation”. An expert opinion on the child’s care needs must be obtained.
Before that, the judge wants to clarify whether the gynecologist is basically liable for the damage to the health of the three-year-old girl. The doctor will only be questioned at a later appointment. First of all, the anesthesiologist called in for the birth was questioned as a witness under the obligation of truthfulness.
“I was not very touched by the decision not to cesarean section,” said the anesthetist on record. The gynecologist spoke extensively with the expectant mother and explained that “a caesarean section is urgently needed because the CTG is not in order”. The patient said “no cesarean section!” said. She almost screamed “. That is “rather atypical and unusual”.
The anesthetist affirmed that the mother had “been clearly explained everything” by the defendant doctor: “It was cleared up. They discussed beforehand.” It was about the question of caesarean section or pain therapy.
At 9:37 p.m., a pediatrician had been called to attend the birth. This doctor was there at 9.44 p.m. The newly born was already “lying at the resuscitation station”, it had “no heart rate and saturation”. “I intubated immediately,” said the pediatrician on the witness stand. 15 minutes after the birth, “the first cardiac action came under ventilation”. In conclusion, he remarked: “I would have preferred I had been there when I was born. But you take it as it is.”