RSS
TwitterFacebook

Cerebral Palsy Medical Malpractice Claim Ends In $130M Jury Verdict

A Michigan jury has awarded $130 million in a medical malpractice lawsuit brought by the family of a child who was allegedly left with cerebral palsy caused by brain damage during medical treatment at two months old. 

Following trial in Oakland County Circuit Court, William Beaumont Hospital was ordered to pay more damages to 12-year-old Vihn Tran, indicating that medical malpractice during treatment in 2006 left the child with å life-long disability.

Cerebral palsy is a neurological disorder that may be attributed to brain damage suffered before, during or shortly after birth. If the child’s brain is deprived of oxygen around the time of birth, it can result in irreversible damage that leaves the child with developmental problems, loss of motor functions and other life-long injuries and disabilities.

According to evidence presented at trial, Tran was hospitalized as an infant at Beaumont in 2006. When he was only two months of age, the hospital allegedly botched multiple attempts to start an IV, resulting in a breath-holding incident. The lawsuit claimed that two nuclear medicine technicians failed to announce a code blue alert and failed to give the baby proper treatment, such as chest compressions, to restart breathing. As a result, he suffered massive brain damage.

Local media reports suggest that the award is one of the largest in a Michigan medical malpractice lawsuit.

The family indicates that the money will be used to provide medical care for Tran, which will be needed for the rest of his life. However, the hospital has said that the verdict will be substantially reduced by state laws capping malpractice awards, and it plans to appeal the verdict.

Tags: , , ,

  • Share Your Comments

  • Have Your Comments Reviewed by a Lawyer

    Provide additional contact information if you want an attorney to review your comments and contact you about a potential case. This information will not be published.
  • NOTE: Providing information for review by an attorney does not form an attorney-client relationship.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.