Court Orders 500 Million Won Compensation for Newborn's Death Caused by Overfeeding

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 obstetrics and gynecology clinic just three days after birth.

The 15th Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Park Jung-ki) fully accepted the plaintiffs' claim, ordering the attending physician, Dr. A, and the head of the maternity hospital to jointly pay about 540 million won to the deceased infant's parents.

The court ruled that the doctor and the hospital director must jointly pay the amount to the parents.

An insurance company that entered into an insurance contract with the hospital was also ordered to jointly compensate the parents up to a limit of 50 million won.

However, the grandmother's claim was only partially upheld, with the court ordering a payment of 5 million won to her.

The deceased newborn was born on January 16, 2024, and stayed in the nursery, where she received feedings and various examinations.

Over an approximately eight-hour period from 7:00 p.m. on January 18, two days later, until 3:00 a.m. the following morning, the hospital fed the newborn a total of 270 milliliters across six instances.

At around 5:00 a.m. on the same day, the newborn was found unresponsive with cyanosis spread across her entire body.

The hospital medical staff called 119, but by the time paramedics arrived, the infant was already unconscious and not breathing.

While paramedics were performing emergency first aid, Dr. A, who was both the attending physician and the doctor on duty, failed to arrive at the hospital, and the newborn died at 7:00 a.m. on January 19, two hours later.

Based on the autopsy results from the National Forensic Service and other evidence, the court concluded that excessive feeding caused vomit to block the airway, leading to hypoxia, which was compounded by the medical staff's inadequate emergency response.

The court pointed out, Considering the size of a newborn's stomach and the recommended single-feeding amount, excessive feedings were administered at short intervals, and the medical staff violated their duty of care by feeding the infant out of convenience.

The court also judged that the hospital's response following the emergency situation was inappropriate.

Pointing out that despite cyanosis and cardiac arrest occurring in the newborn, the hospital staff waited about 30 minutes after checking her condition before calling 119, the court added that emergency measures were further delayed because a nurse attempted endotracheal intubation—a procedure restricted to doctors—and failed.

It further stated, During the cardiopulmonary resuscitation process, appropriate emergency measures were not taken, such as applying the adult-style 2-to-1 ratio instead of the 3-to-1 ratio guideline designated for newborns.

The court also rejected the hospital's claims that there was no excessive feeding and that the cause of death was sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) rather than asphyxiation due to airway obstruction.

The court stated, As long as a causal relationship between the negligence of overfeeding and asphyxial death caused by airway obstruction due to aspirated vomit is presumed, it cannot be overturned simply by the vague possibility of sudden infant death syndrome. Even if it had been sudden infant death syndrome, the newborn's life could have been preserved if the medical staff had fulfilled their duty of care.

Additionally, the court noted that the day after the newborn's death, a nurse belonging to the hospital altered the medical record from fed well to fussy, so supplemental feeding was given, and that hospital officials continuously contradicted their statements during the investigative process and in court.

The court added that even though Dr. A and others were cleared of charges in the related criminal case, 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)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.