Davidov v Fieldman
Annotate this CaseDecided on December 13, 2006
Supreme Court, Queens County
Natella Davidov, by her mother and natural guardian, Lydia Davidov and Suren Bangiev, Plaintiffs,
against
Anna M. Fieldman, Jean Eddy Moise and New York Hospital Medical Center of Queens, Defendants.
13197/03
Roger N. Rosengarten, J.
The plaintiff herein moves to set aside a Jury Verdict in favor of the defendants alleging that the said verdict was tainted by the impropriety of the defendants' counsels opening statements, improper cross-examination of the plaintiffs' expert witnesses, pleas to sympathy, the raising of the issue of Workers' Compensation application made on plaintiffs' behalf, the raising of certain unfounded objections by defense counsel, that the Court improperly curtailed the plaintiff's cross-examination of defense expert Dr. Easterling.
This was a lengthy and hotly contested trial in which the attorneys for virtually all parties at some points overstepped the boundaries of zealous prosecution or defense. It is the opinion of the Court that such "overstepping" did not rise to the level that requires the Court to set aside the jury's verdict in this matter.
Both the prosecution and defense made pleas to sympathy. Such pleas were countermanded by the Court's instructions to the jury on the subject.
As to the contention that the Court improperly curtailed plaintiffs' cross-examination of Dr. Easterling, the Court notes that the movant's cross-examination of this witness consumed
238 pages of the trial transcript and the further cross-examination via telephone hook up consumed approximately a further 70 pages of transcript. It is the opinion of the Court that the movant had more than sufficient opportunity to effectively conduct his examination of the witness in an efficient and timely manner.
[*2]
The plaintiff in this action claims that she suffered brain damage during the birth of her second child due to the aspiration of acidic vomitous materials that burned the aveoli (or air sacks) of her lungs thereby depriving of her sufficient oxygen a condition which the defendants herein failed to rectify by speedy intubation with 100% oxygen. The defense claimed that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by Embryonic Fluid Embolism or Anaphylactic Syndrome of Pregnancy, a sudden, catastrophic condition for which medical science has no remedy. Statistics were offered by both sides that demonstrated the high mortality rate and even higher brain damage consequences of this condition.
The proof adduced upon the trial of this matter was overwhelmingly convincing that the plaintiff's injuries, as tragic as they are, were brought on by ambonic fluid embolism. The evidence indicated that the condition is caused by an adverse reaction of the circulatorysystem to the introduction of ambionic fluid into the blood circulatory system that in this case - virtually shut down the flow of blood through the pulmonary system preventing oxygen from getting to the vital organs and the rest of the body.
The expert testimony supported the defendants' contentions. The medical records produced during trial reveal that at the virtual end stage of labor the plaintiff's oxygen saturation rate became abnormally low and the fetal heart rate fluctuated to a point that necessitated an emergency caesarean section delivery which was immediately and successfully performed. However, during the said surgery, the plaintiff "coded" and her heart stopped beating. The medical team successfully resuscitated the plaintiff and immediately thereafter her oxygen saturation rate returned to 100%.
The expert evidence adduced at trial showed that had the plaintiff suffered acid burns of her aveoli sufficient to cause the level of oxygen deprivation suffered by plaintiff in this case it
would have taken weeks or months to heal to the extent of raising her oxygen saturation rate to 100%. Thus, plaintiff's immediate return to 100% oxygen saturation rate was a classic sign of ambionic fluid embolism.
The plaintiff further contended that even if she had suffered an ambionic fluid embolism had defendants properly administered sufficient oxygen through timely intubation her injuries would have been avoided or alleviated to a great extent.
Expert testimony adduced by defense indicated that as a result of the said ambionic fluid embolism the blood flow through the plaintiff's pulmonary system was virtually totally shut down. Thus, even the administration of great amounts of pure oxygen would not have resulted in alleviation of the condition as the blood had ceased to flow through the plaintiff's lungs and no air exchange was taking place. Thus, no oxygen could have reached the plaintiff's vital organs including her brain.
The Court finds the medical testimony in this case to have been the compelling and the evidence was abundantly clear that the plaintiff suffered a sudden catastrophic condition for which medical science and art has no effective remedial therapy.This anaphylactic condition [*3]ran its course in about 20 minutes at which time the plaintiff's oxygen saturation rate returned to normal, but unfortunately and tragically the damage had been done.
It was for the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses, including the experts called by both sides. The Court cannot find in this matter that the jury's decision was against the weight of the credible evidence.
As to the plaintiff's contentions regarding the behavior of counsel for the defendants,it is the opinion of the Court that the medical evidence was so convincingly clear that even if the Court were to set aside the verdict based upon these allegations, a retrial of the case would be an exercise in futility and a waste of resources and judicial economy, as the verdict upon a retrial
would no doubt be the same as the verdict had herein. The Court has examined plaintiffs' other contentions and finds them to be without merit.
Accordingly, the motion is in all respects denied.
Dated: December 13, 2006____________________________________
ROGER N. ROSENGARTEN, J.S.C.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
