Supreme Court reinstates lawsuit against hospital

Wednesday, April 28, 2004 | 9:28 a.m.

CARSON CITY -- The Nevada Supreme Court Tuesday reinstated a medical malpractice suit against Sunrise Hospital and Medical Center in the case of a baby that was born with irreversible brain damage.

The court, in a unanimous decision, overturned the ruling of District Judge Kathy Hardcastle, who had granted a pre-trial summary judgment and a partial summary judgment in favor of Sunrise and denied the motion of Marilyn Monroe to amend her suit.

Monroe's son, James, was born by Caesarean section on May 31, 1995, and suffered a "severe intracranial hemorrhage."

Monroe sued the hospital and the doctors who handled the birth. The lawsuit complained about the prenatal care she received from the nurses at the hospital and after the delivery.

Court records show Dr. Deborah Hughes and Dr. Joseph Watson and their obstetrics group settled the case by agreeing to pay $700,000.

Attorneys for Sunrise maintain there was testimony by three experts that the child did not suffer any damage prior to Monroe entering the hospital for the birth. They cited the finding of the medical-dental screening panel in July 1998 there was "no reasonable probability" of medical malpractice on the part of the hospital.

In her pre-trial order, Hardcastle said any evidence of negligence by the nurses before the May 31 birth should be excluded at trial. She disallowed the mother's claim for emotional distress.

Part of the suit remained in effect. A District Court trial in Las Vegas had been held in abeyance pending the ruling by the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court said the mother has the right to sue for "negligent infliction of emotional distress." It said the court record "indicates that there is evidence of serious emotional distress resulting in illness, as Monroe suffered from a nervous breakdown requiring hospitalization."

Monroe's lawsuit alleges the substandard pre-natal care by nurses at Sunrise decreased James' chance for a more favorable outcome and was a substantial factor in James' irreversible brain damage. The court said Monroe has presented sufficient evidence so far "to establish a factual question" whether the prenatal care contributed to the brain damage, so that should be decided at trial. It also said "there is no indication in the record that Monroe acted in bad faith or with dilatory motives in seeking to leave to amend her complaint."

The court said the amended complaint is "merely a refinement" of the first suit. The unanimous decision said Monroe should be able to have her full lawsuit heard at one trial.

"If Monroe is not permitted to litigate these issues at the same time, she will be subjected to the undue burden and expense of multiple trials."