Cesarean delivery is one of the most commonly performed surgical procedures in the United States, and most C-sections produce healthy outcomes for both mother and baby. C-section injury lawsuits arise in two distinct categories of situations: cases where a C-section was medically necessary but was not performed, or was performed too late, allowing the conditions that required surgical delivery to cause preventable harm; and cases where a C-section was performed but the surgery itself was executed in ways that caused injury to the mother or baby that appropriate surgical technique and care would have prevented.
Understanding the distinction between these two categories, what the standard of care requires in each, and what the medical record evidence reveals about whether that standard was met is the foundation for evaluating whether a specific C-section situation supports a legal claim.
Contents
The Delayed C-Section as the Most Common Actionable Error
The delayed C-section case is the most frequently litigated C-section injury scenario. It arises when the clinical indicators for emergency or urgent cesarean delivery were present in the labor and delivery record, when those indicators were either not recognized or not acted upon with appropriate urgency, and when the resulting delay in delivery allowed developing fetal distress to progress to the point of injury. The injury that most commonly results from a delayed C-section is hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy, the form of brain injury produced by oxygen deprivation, which can cause cerebral palsy, intellectual disability, and other permanent neurological impairment.
The standard of care for emergency C-section when fetal distress is recognized requires a decision-to-incision time that reflects the urgency of the clinical situation. The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists has addressed the decision-to-incision interval in emergency cesarean delivery, and while there is clinical nuance in what that interval should be in specific circumstances, the principle that urgent fetal distress requires urgent surgical response is not ambiguous. A decision-to-incision interval that significantly exceeds what the clinical situation permitted is a specific and documentable departure from the standard of care.
When a C-Section Should Have Been Recommended and Was Not
A distinct category of case involves situations where the clinical picture indicated that vaginal delivery was not safe and that C-section should have been recommended, but the clinical team either did not recognize the indication or did not act on it. The situations most commonly giving rise to this theory include:
- Fetal macrosomia in combination with maternal diabetes or prior shoulder dystocia: When imaging suggests a baby is significantly larger than the pelvis can safely accommodate, and when risk factors for shoulder dystocia are present, the standard of care may require offering or recommending C-section rather than attempting vaginal delivery
- Abnormal fetal presentation: Breech presentation and certain other abnormal positions require either external cephalic version to reposition the baby or planned cesarean delivery. Attempting vaginal delivery in a breech presentation without appropriate informed consent and clinical justification may fall below the standard
- Placenta previa and placental abruption: Complete placenta previa requires cesarean delivery, and significant placental abruption typically requires emergency delivery. Failure to diagnose these conditions and respond appropriately can give rise to claims for the resulting maternal and fetal injuries
Maternal C-Section Injuries
C-section injury lawsuits are not limited to fetal outcomes. Mothers who sustain injuries during cesarean delivery as a result of surgical errors that fall below the standard of care have independent malpractice claims for those injuries. The most common maternal surgical injuries that give rise to claims include bladder lacerations from inadequate dissection technique, ureteral injuries from improper identification of anatomical structures, bowel injuries from adhesion management errors, and hemorrhage from inadequate management of uterine blood supply. Each of these injuries is a recognized complication of cesarean delivery, but the distinction between a recognized complication occurring despite appropriate care and the same injury occurring because of departures from appropriate technique is the distinction the malpractice claim must establish.
Working with experienced counsel who handles C-section injury lawsuits means having access to the obstetric and surgical expert witnesses who can review the operative record, the decision-making documentation, and the post-operative care records to identify specifically where the standard of care was met and where it was not.
