▲ Newborn nursery (The photo above is not related to the article content.)
A court has ruled that medical staff are liable and ordered them to pay approximately 500 million won in damages in a lawsuit filed by the parents of a newborn who died at an obstetric clinic three days after birth.
The 15th Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Park Jung-ki) fully accepted the 540 million won in compensation claimed by the parents in a damage suit filed against the attending physician, Dr. A, and the head of the obstetric hospital.
The court ordered the doctor and the hospital director to jointly pay the amount to the parents.
An insurance company that had a liability insurance contract with the hospital was also ordered to jointly compensate the parents up to a limit of 50 million won.
However, the maternal grandmother's claim was only partially accepted, ordering the payment of 5 million won.
The deceased newborn was born on January 16, 2024, and stayed in the neonatal nursery receiving feedings and various examinations.
Two days later, from 7:00 PM on the 18th to 3:00 AM the following morning, the hospital fed the newborn a total of 270 ml across six sessions over a period of about eight hours.
At around 5:00 AM on the same day, the newborn was found in an apneic state with cyanosis appearing across its entire body.
The hospital medical staff reported the incident to 119, but by the time paramedics arrived, the infant was already unresponsive and without breath.
While paramedics were performing emergency first aid, Dr. A, who was the attending and on-call physician, failed to arrive at the hospital, and the newborn died two hours later at 7:00 AM on the 19th.
Based on the autopsy results from the National Forensic Service and other evidence, the court concluded that the infant died from hypoxia caused by vomit blocking the airway due to overfeeding, compounded by inadequate emergency response from the medical staff.
The court pointed out that considering the size of a newborn's stomach and the recommended single-feeding volume, excessive feeding was carried out at short intervals, and that the medical staff violated their duty of care by feeding the baby for their own convenience.
It was also judged that the hospital's response following the emergency situation was inappropriate.
The court noted that although cyanosis and cardiac arrest occurred in the newborn, the hospital reported the situation to 119 only about 30 minutes after confirming the condition, and that emergency response was further delayed because a nurse attempted endotracheal intubation, a procedure restricted to doctors, and failed.
It further stated that during the cardiopulmonary resuscitation process, proper emergency measures were not taken, such as applying the adult-style 2-to-1 compression ratio instead of the 3-to-1 ratio guideline for newborns.
The court also dismissed the hospital's claim that no overfeeding took place and that the cause of death was sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) rather than asphyxiation due to airway obstruction.
The court stated that as long as the causal relationship between the negligence of overfeeding and asphyxiated death by airway obstruction caused by vomit is presumed, it cannot be overturned merely by the vague possibility of sudden infant death syndrome, adding that even if it had been sudden infant death syndrome, the medical staff could have preserved the newborn's life if they had fulfilled their duty of care.
Furthermore, the court pointed out that a nurse affiliated with the hospital modified the medical record from "fed well" to "fed supplementary milk due to fussiness" the day after the newborn's death, and that statements from hospital personnel continued to change during the investigation process and in court.
The court added that even though Dr. A and others were cleared of charges in related criminal proceedings, the case was concluded due to insufficient evidence without a thorough investigation into newborn management, which does not negate the medical staff's civil negligence.
The defendants appealed the ruling.
(Photo: Yonhap News)
※
Copying, redistribution, and unauthorized use in AI training are strictly prohibited.