HARTFORD, Conn. (Legal Newsline) - A mother who sued a state hospital for emotional distress after a difficult delivery in which her son was permanently injured can proceed with her case because the damages fall under the general category of medical malpractice, the Connecticut Supreme Court ruled.
Citing a trend in courts nationwide to include emotional distress among medical malpractice claims, the state high court said the state’s sovereign immunity law doesn’t apply. Connecticut law waives sovereign immunity for medical malpractice but not for general liability claims.
Celine Escobar-Santana was diagnosed with high blood pressure, abnormal protein levels and swollen legs when she went to a prenatal visit at a walk-in clinic in 2020. A follow-up visit revealed her fetus was above the 90th percentile in weight. She was admitted to the University of Connecticut Health Center in Farmington in March 2020, where after several hours of labor an obstetrician determined the baby’s head was malpositioned. The doctor tried manually rotating the baby’s head but the pain was unbearable so Escobar-Santana opted for a caesarian section. The normally rapid process took almost half an hour and baby Emmett was born with “serious and permanent injuries.”
Escobar-Santana sued on behalf of her son and herself, claiming medical malpractice and severe emotional distress from the “traumatic, terrifying and painful’’ delivery. The state moved to dismiss her emotional damages claim, arguing it wasn’t covered under the waiver of immunity for medical malpractice. A trial judge refused and the Connecticut Supreme Court affirmed that decision in an Aug. 22 opinion.
“Consistent with the modern trend and the rule that has been adopted by a majority of our sister states and Superior Court judges who have considered the issue, we hold that, when a fetus or infant suffers physical injuries as a result of medical malpractice during the labor and delivery process, the birthing mother is a joint victim of the malpractice and can recover for emotional distress,” the court ruled.
Connecticut argued on appeal that the waiver of sovereign immunity extended only to medical malpractice and Escobar-Santana’s claim was more akin to bystander injury or negligent infliction of emotional distress. The law doesn’t define “medical malpractice,” the Supreme Court observed, but courts have consistently broadened the scope of damages to include emotional distress and Connecticut recognizes the tort of bystander emotional distress stemming from medical malpractice.
Courts have generally accepted “the theory that the mother and fetus are physically and emotionally inseparable prior to birth, and, therefore, a physical injury to the child during the birthing process is, in effect, a bodily injury to the mother as well,” the court said. “The mother and the child are, in effect, joint victims of the medical malpractice.”
The court acknowledged Escobar-Santana also claimed she suffered her own physical injuries but said it was only answering the question of whether she could sue for emotional distress stemming from her baby’s injuries.
Escobar-Santana was represented by Alinor C. Sterling, Kathleen Nastri and Sarah Steinfeld. Michael G. Rigg represented the state.