Michigan Verdicts

Plaintiff(s):

Digby Maring (Male, 1 Minute)

Plaintiff Attorney(s):

Milton H. Greenman;
The Thurswell Law Firm, PLLC;
Southfield,
MI,
for
Digby Maring ■ Erik L. Proulx;
The Thurswell Law Firm, PLLC;
Southfield,
MI,
for
Digby Maring

Plaintiff Expert(s):

Harry Chugani; M.D.; Pediatric Neurology; Detroit,
MI called by:
Milton H. Greenman, Erik L. Proulx ■ Robert Ancell; Ph.D.; Vocational Rehabilitation; Detroit,
MI called by:
Milton H. Greenman, Erik L. Proulx ■ Michael Thompson; Ph.D.; Economics; Southfield,
MI called by:
Milton H. Greenman, Erik L. Proulx

Defendant(s):

Stacyann Steen, M.D., 

Advantage Health Physicians PC

Defense Attorney(s):

Steven C. Berry;
Berry & Berry, PLC;
Holland,
MI,
for
Stacyann Steen, M.D., Advantage Health Physicians PC ■ Christopher S. Berry;
Berry & Berry, PLC;
Holland,
MI,
for
Stacyann Steen, M.D., Advantage Health Physicians PC

Insurer(s):

MHA Insurance Co. for Steen and Advantage Health Physicians

In October 2009, plaintiff Digby Maring was born to Emily Maring in Grand Rapids. He was full term and weighed approximately 9 lbs. at birth. The progression of labor was normal until complications of shoulder dystocia occurred during the last stage of delivery. A couple of months after Digby’s birth, he was diagnosed with avulsion nerve root injuries. Digby, who was 5 1/2 years old at the time of trial, had less than 10 percent use of the affected arm. Digby Maring, by and through his next friend and mother, Emily Maring, filed suit against the doctor who performed the delivery, Stacyann Steen, M.D., and her employer, Advantage Health Physicians, PC. Plaintiff alleged that the child’s injury occurred due to medical negligence by Steen in freeing the shoulder dystocia. Plaintiff asserted that Steen ordered everyone out of the room. (The hospital allowed family members to be present during childbirth.) The child’s grandfather described the doctor as pulling, cranking and twisting the baby to accomplish the delivery. Immediately after the birth, the grandfather claimed he asked Steen what was wrong with the baby’s arm, to which she allegedly replied that the child’s arm would be better the next day. Plaintiff further asserted that when subsequent inquiries were made about the infant’s arm, they were told the arm would be better "next week" and "next month," and physical therapy was prescribed for the baby’s arm. Additionally, plaintiff argued that, by December, the physical therapist questioned why someone had not evaluated the child’s arm. Plaintiffs’ experts opined that Steen torqued the child’s head, which caused the injury. They also maintained that Steen failed to implement the necessary standard of care to safely deliver the infant. Defendants contended that the child’s injury was due to the forces of maternal labor and that Steen applied the proper maneuvers to deliver the child. Steen denied using unnecessary force to delivery the baby and argued that she had complied with all standards of care, but reportedly admitted that the infant’s shoulder did not move when she tried to rotate it.

Digby sustained permanent brachial plexus avulsion injuries, allegedly as a result of unnecessary force applied during birth. Plaintiff claimed 3.5 nerve roots were ripped out of Digby’s spinal cord, which left him with less than 10 percent use of his arm. Plaintiff claimed the child would require services for the rest of his life and had significant lost earning capacity. Plaintiff also sought past and future damages for pain and suffering. Defendants denied causing the injury and disputed the extent of damages sought by plaintiff.

The jury found for the plaintiff and determined that the damages totaled $9,430,000. Plaintiff’s counsel reported that this was the largest malpractice award in Kent County history.

Judge:

Mark A. Trusock

Trial Length:

4
 days

Trial Deliberations:

4
 hours

Jury Vote:

6-1

Post Trial:

No appeal had been filed as of the date of publication.

This report is based on information that was provided by plaintiff’s counsel. Defense counsel did not respond to a request for comment.