Court Orders 500 Million Won Compensation to Parents of Newborn Who Died After Excessive Feeding

A court has ruled in favor of the parents of a newborn who died at an obstetrics and gynecology clinic just three days after birth, holding the medical staff accountable and ordering them to pay approximately 500 million won in damages.

The 15th Civil Division of the Seoul Central District Court (Presiding Judge Park Jung-ki) fully accepted the plaintiffs' claim in a damages lawsuit filed by the deceased infant's parents against the attending physician, identified as Dr. A, and the head of the maternity hospital, ordering them to pay roughly 540 million won.

The court ordered the doctor and the hospital director to 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 maternal grandmother's claim was only partially upheld, ordering a payment of 5 million won.

The deceased newborn was born on January 16, 2024, and stayed in the neonatal nursery where it received 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 feedings over a period of about eight hours.

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 called 119, but by the time emergency responders arrived, the infant was already unresponsive and without a pulse.

While paramedics were administering emergency first aid, Dr. A, who was the attending physician and on-duty doctor at the time, 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 excessive feeding caused vomit to block the airway, leading to hypoxia, which was compounded by the medical staff's inadequate emergency response, resulting in the infant's death.

The court pointed out that considering the size of a newborn's stomach and the recommended single-feeding amount, a large volume of milk was administered at short intervals, and that the medical staff carried out the feedings out of convenience while violating their duty of care.

It was also determined that the hospital's response following the emergency situation was inappropriate.

The court noted that despite cyanosis and cardiac arrest occurring in the infant, the hospital staff waited about 30 minutes after checking the condition before calling 119, and that an emergency response was further delayed because a nurse attempted endotracheal intubation—a procedure restricted to physicians—and failed.

It further stated that during cardiopulmonary resuscitation, instead of applying the 3-to-1 ratio guideline for newborns, an adult-style 2-to-1 ratio was used, failing to execute proper emergency measures.

The court also dismissed the hospital's argument that no excessive feeding took place and that the cause of death was sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS) rather than asphyxiation from airway obstruction.

The court ruled that since a causal relationship between the negligence of excessive feeding and asphyxiation due to aspirated vomit is presumed, it cannot be overturned simply by the vague possibility of SIDS, adding that even if it had been SIDS, the newborn's life could have been preserved had the medical staff fulfilled their duty of care.

In addition, it was pointed out that the day after the newborn's death, a nurse belonging to the hospital altered the medical record from "fed well" to "supplemental feeding given due to fussiness," and that statements from hospital officials continued to contradict each other during the investigation and court proceedings.

The court added that even if Dr. A and others were cleared of charges in the related criminal case, the criminal investigation was concluded due to insufficient evidence without a thorough investigation into newborn management, and therefore the medical staff's civil liability cannot be negated.

The defendants appealed the ruling, expressing dissatisfaction.

(Photo: Yonhap News)
※ Please note: This article was translated by AI and may contain errors.