Federal Court Rejects Claims of Medical Malpractice and Medical Battery Against the United States

For Further Information, Contact:
Assistant U. S. Attorney Steven J. Poliakoff (619) 546-7058 and Janet A. Cabral (619) 546-8715 

SAN DIEGO – A federal judge held, following a recent bench trial, that a San Diego woman failed to establish her claims of medical malpractice and medical battery against the United States.

Instead, the court found that the evidence at trial “overwhelmingly” supported the United States’ position that obstetrician Sandra Lopez, M.D., from the federally-funded Vista Community Clinic (“VCC”), met the standard of care in her treatment of the plaintiff and in performing an emergency Cesarean-section delivery with informed consent.  VCC is one of many federally-funded health centers nationwide that receive federal funding to provide medical care in underserved communities.

The plaintiff, who was 41½ weeks pregnant, was admitted to Tri-City Medical Center for induction of labor on November 15, 2017. Her attending VCC obstetrician, Sandra Lopez, M.D., ordered Pitocin to induce labor. The plaintiff requested, and an anesthesiologist inserted, a continuous epidural anesthetic to relieve pain. Both the Pitocin and epidural anesthetic were administered pursuant to Tri-City Hospital Medical Center protocols, which the evidence demonstrated met the standard of care. 

According to evidence presented at trial, at approximately 5:20 a.m, the following morning, nursing staff noted a markedly diminished fetal heartbeat, and called Dr. Lopez, who arrived at the plaintiff’s bedside by 5:21 a.m. Dr. Lopez confirmed that the baby’s heartbeat was dangerously slow and weak. Dr. Lopez consulted with the plaintiff, who agreed to undergo an emergency Cesarean-section delivery to prevent neurologic injury and possibly death to her baby. Dr. Lopez called for an emergency Cesarean-section delivery per Tri-City Hospital protocol, which should result in all members of the surgical team promptly appearing at the operating room. However, the hospital paging notification system (for which the United States was not responsible) was delayed, and the anesthesiologist did not receive timely notification.  

The baby’s very slow and very weak heartbeat meant that its blood supply to critical organs, including the brain, was being severely compromised. If allowed to continue, the baby would suffer irreversible brain damage and possibly death. Not knowing when, or even if, the anesthesiologist would arrive, Dr. Lopez consulted with the plaintiff, who again consented to Cesarean-section delivery of her baby, but now with injection of a local anesthetic to augment the anesthesia that she already had in place with the epidural anesthetic. Dr. Lopez conducted a pinch test in the plaintiff’s lower abdomen, both before and after the injection of the local anesthetic, to confirm that the plaintiff did not have sensation in the area. 

During the surgery, the anesthesiologist arrived and further anesthetized the plaintiff.  Within one minute of beginning the surgery, Dr. Lopez delivered a normal and healthy baby. 

In her complaint, which was reported by many local news outlets after its filing, the plaintiff alleged that the United States, through Dr. Lopez, breached the standard of care in the administration of Pitocin (thereby creating the baby’s distress) and committed medical battery by performing an emergency Cesarean-section delivery without anesthesia, and without the plaintiff’s consent.  The Court disagreed and found that:

Plaintiff has failed to establish her claims of medical malpractice and medical battery in this case.  The evidence overwhelmingly supports Defendant’s position that Dr. Lopez met the standard of care in her treatment of Plaintiff and proceeded to perform the emergency c-section with informed consent, and to perform it under local anesthesia with informed consent. 

"Dr. Lopez’s quick thinking and her command of the operating room in this obstetrical emergency was of the highest order and resulted in the birth of a healthy baby,” said U.S. Attorney Randy Grossman. “The United States Attorney’s Office was honored to defend this case and is grateful that justice was found in the court’s ruling."

Case Number

Delfina Mota v. United States of America, 19-cv-1212-AJB-NLS

SUMMARY OF CLAIMS

1. Medical negligence
2. Medical Battery

AGENCY

Department of Health and Human Services