Frank Special Filed a Claim Against Ivo A. Baux, M.D - Case Study Example

On March 17, 2005 Frank Special filed a claim against Ivo A. Baux, M.D who worked in West Boca Medical Center. The claim was filed not against the given medical establishment, but against the doctor in particular as he was accused in negligence that led to death of the wife of Frank Special, Susan Special. She was pregnant and died straight after delivery of her baby which was held under spinal anesthesia. The husband stated that the anesthesia was administered in a wrong way, timely interventions were not performed.

Defendants argued that the woman died from an amniotic fluid embolism (AFE). However, medical examiner Barbara Wolf, who performed an autopsy, stated that no AFE was revealed, while it is usually revealed in such cases. The fault of Dr. Baux was actively disputed. Petitioner claimed that the testimony of the important witness, Gary Didly, M. D. was considered in the wrong way by Judge Kelley. Gary Didly was an expert invited by defendants to confirm that the cases of AFE are not so rare as it was stated by the experts invited by Plaintiff.

After the cross-examination Special was sure that he undermined the conclusion made by Didily, however, the court did not accept that and considered this to be an impeachment. The judgment was made in favor of the Defendants and Dr. Baux was considered not guilty. Petitioner wanted to have a new trial stating that the medical center has an epidemic of amniotic fluid embolism. He applied to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which stated that “[t]o avoid a new trial, the beneficiary of the error in the trial court must show on appeal that it is more likely than not that the error did not influence the trier of fact and thereby contribute to the verdict” Id. at 771. On October 19, 2007 the verdict was returned for Defendants.

On June 23, 2010 majority opinion was issued stating that the error made by the judge who did not include the testimony of Gary Dadly, was minor and did not influence much the case and the verdict. Discretionary jurisdiction was considered not necessary because even if the case is re-considered, the opposite verdict would not be reached in any case. The claim of Special was rejected and the case was not re-considered.Special sued Dr. Baux, because his wife died after her delivery. However, she was about 40 years old and had problems with health during her pregnancy.

The results of delivery testify that the child was successfully delivered, thus spinal anesthesia was made properly. The results of autopsy did not show the evidences of amniotic fluid embolism, but it also did not testify that the woman died because of doctor’s negligence and wrong administration. The experts also stated that the evidences of amniotic fluid embolism are usually revealed during autopsy, but this testifies that they also can’t be revealed. Moreover, according to experts, the cases of amniotic fluid embolism are not so rare.

Thus, there are no evidences of Dr. Baux’s relation to the death of Susan Special.