Cook County Judge John P. Kirby denied defense motions for a new trial, thus upholding a $52 million award returned by a jury to a now 12-year old boy who was born with cerebral palsy and brain damage caused by medical malpractice at his birth.
The judge brushed aside the motions by the University of Chicago Medical Center complaining about actions by plaintiff attorney Geoffrey Fieger. The case is Isaiah Ewing v. The University of Chicago Medical Center, 13 L 13750.
Fieger of Fieger Law in Southfield, MI, together with Attorney Jack Beam, secured a $53 million verdict on June 29, 2016 for their client, who suffered brain damage at birth due to inadequate practices at the University of Chicago Medical Center – sometimes called University of Chicago Medicine.
For an entire month, the trial progressed and the plaintiff’s legal counsel built a solid case that medical malpractice had occurred but should have been prevented. The defending counsel petitioned for a retrial through numerous post-trial motions but was recently denied by a trial judge
Twelve years ago, Lisa Ewing came to the University of Chicago Medical Center and told staff that she was experiencing decreased fetal movement from her unborn child, Isaiah. A first-year resident at the clinic evaluated her right away and determined that Isaiah was in fetal distress. However, another 11 hours would pass until an obstetrician would see Lisa.
By the time an emergency C-section was performed, the damage had been done, and Isaiah was born with brain damage that would later be diagnosed as Cerebral Palsy and a seizure disorder, each caused directly by the delay in Lisa’s treatment.
Defense counsel for the University of Chicago Medicine claimed that the defendant did not receive a fair trial. It spoke of procedural errors that allegedly had rendered the case result unusable. Following extensive review, Judge John Kirby denied the retrial request and upheld the verdict in favor of Lisa and Isaiah Ewing, Fieger Law’s client, in late December; the verdict amount was reduced by about 2% in order to correct what was deemed a technical error, though.
The University of Chicago Medical Center must begin the process of paying our client the rewarded verdict. If not, the medical organization must file an appeal to a higher court. It is unknown at this time if the defendant or its counsel intends to do so.