Newborn Dies Three Days After Birth... Court: "Hospital Overfed Baby, Must Pay 540 Million Won in Damages"

First Trial Fully Upholds Parents’ Compensation Claim

A court has ruled that a hospital must compensate the parents of a newborn who died at an obstetrics clinic just three days after birth.

The photo is not directly related to the article content. Getty Images

According to the legal community on August 2, the Seoul Central District Court Civil Division 15 (Chief Judge Park Jeonggi) fully granted the damages claim of approximately KRW 540 million filed by the parents of the deceased newborn and others against Dr. A, the attending physician, and the director of the obstetrics clinic. The court ordered the physician and the hospital director to jointly compensate the parents, and also ordered the insurance company, which had a contract with the hospital, to jointly pay up to KRW 50 million of the compensation amount.

The newborn, born on January 16, 2024, underwent feeding and various examinations in the neonatal unit of the obstetrics clinic. The hospital administered a total of 270 mL of formula over six feedings within approximately eight hours, from around 7:30 p.m. on January 18 (two days after birth) until about 3:30 a.m. the following day.

At 5 a.m. that same day, a nurse discovered the newborn exhibiting cyanosis all over the body and in a state of apnea. The nurse performed CPR, but by the time the emergency medical team arrived in response to the call, the newborn was already in cardiac arrest, showing no signs of consciousness, breathing, or pulse.

While the emergency team performed first aid, the attending physician did not arrive at the hospital. Instead, a nurse accompanied the infant in the ambulance to the emergency room at another hospital. However, the newborn ultimately died at 7 a.m., two hours later.

The autopsy by the National Forensic Service suggested the possibility of asphyxiation due to airway obstruction from the inhalation of vomit, such as formula. Accordingly, the court found the hospital at fault.

The court stated, "The staff performed repeated feedings at short intervals for the newborn, disregarding recommended protocols," and added, "Medical staff may have prioritized their own convenience, violating their duty of care when feeding the baby."

The court also pointed to the following acts of negligence: insufficient preparation of emergency medical equipment or drugs; a delay of at least 30 minutes in reporting to emergency services (119); medical staff failing to conduct timely emergency measures and transfers despite the emergent situation; CPR that did not comply with guidelines for newborns; and a nurse attempting endotracheal intubation – a procedure permissible only under a physician’s direction or supervision – but failing. In addition, the court noted that a nurse employed by the hospital amended the medical record entry "fed well" to "supplemental feeding due to fussiness" the day after the infant's death, and that statements from hospital staff repeatedly changed during the investigation and in court.

The court elaborated, "Rather than promptly notifying emergency services, staff continued repeated attempts at endotracheal intubation using a suction device, which further delayed emergency care. By the nurse attempting intubation alone, it appears that the CPR that should have been continuously performed on the infant was completely halted."

The court also stated, "It is unlikely that sudden infant death syndrome would occur in a newborn who had not yet reached three full days of age." The court explained, "A causal relationship can be presumed between excessive feeding negligence and death by asphyxiation due to airway obstruction from the aspiration of vomitus." Furthermore, "Even if the cause was sudden infant death syndrome, it appears that the newborn’s life could have been preserved had the medical staff fulfilled their duty of care," the court pointed out.

However, the hospital argued, "There was no excessive feeding, and emergency care was appropriately administered," and insisted, "The death should be attributed to sudden infant death syndrome, not asphyxiation from airway obstruction." The defendants have appealed the ruling.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.