Angie M. Barsness gave birth in a hospital in December 2016. While in labor, she was given an epidural and a bolus for pain relief. A bolus involves administering a larger amount of epidural medication which increases pain relief but can lead to more numbness and less motor control of the legs…medicalmalpracticelawyers.com, Minnesota Appellate Court Affirms Summary Judgment For Hospital In Fall After Giving Birth Malpractice Claim, Oct 2024
Approximately two hours after Barsness gave birth, a nurse approached her about taking a bath, saying it would be “therapeutic.” Barsness, who was still experiencing numbness in her legs and had not regained normal motor control, initially told the nurse that she did not want to take a bath. She explained that she was still feeling the effects of the epidural, and that her right leg felt like “a noodle” or “jelly.” With some encouragement from the nurse, Barsness acquiesced.
After a long hot bath, the same nurse helped Barsness out of the tub but left her standing on her own in the bathroom while the nurse changed the garbage. Barsness then fell and hit the back of her head on the tub. According to the nurse, she instructed Barsness to hold onto the sink while she helped dry Barsness off with a towel. But as the nurse was doing this, Barsness’s legs started to shake, and she suddenly went stiff and fell backwards. The next day, Barsness was complaining about blurry vision, so she was taken in for a CT scan, which came back normal.
The district court dismissed the complaint and granted summary judgment to Fairview Health Services, finding that the plaintiff’s experts’ affidavits did not explain “how Barsness’s claimed injuries differed from her preexisting injuries.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals stated in its Nonprecedential Opinion filed on July 29, 2024:
While a lay person may be able to comprehend that a fall could cause a “goose egg” like the one Barsness had, her alleged injuries are far more medically complex than a simple bump on the head. For example, it is not readily apparent how falling and hitting one’s head could lead to pain in the thoracic and sacral regions of the spine. And it is exceptionally unlikely that a lay person could parse out how Barsness’s post-fall injuries differ from those she was experiencing prior to giving birth … Barsness needs to establish not just that she was a fall risk, but also that the nurse’s alleged departure from the standard of care caused her fall and her lasting injuries. And again, we do not believe a reasonable lay juror would be able to understand whether and how Barsness’s fall caused injuries that were different that those she was suffering before giving birth.”
The Minnesota appellate court held: “we conclude that the district court did not err by concluding that expert
testimony was required to establish a prima facie case on the element of causation … Barsness’s expert affidavits do nothing to differentiate or explain why her pre-fall injuries are different from her post-fall injuries. If this evidence, without more, was presented to a jury, the jury would be required to speculate on which of Barsness’s injuries was the result of the fall or it would have to guess how the fall exacerbated these preexisting conditions. Such speculation is impermissible … we conclude that the proper foundation for Barsness’s experts’ opinions on causation was not articulated in the affidavits. Consequently, the evidence in the record is not sufficient to show that it was more probable than not that her injuries resulted from the alleged medical negligence.”