£300,000 settlement for a fourth-degree perineal tear following delivery of a large baby.

From 26 weeks, our client’s Symphysis Fundal Height (SFH) measurements showed the baby was consistently larger than expected. The SFH is the distance (in centimetres) from the top of the mother’s pubic bone (symphysis pubis) to the top of the uterus (fundus). The measurement roughly matches the number of weeks pregnant a woman is (e.g., 28 cm at 28 weeks). All of the measurements at each antenatal appointment showed that the baby was large. By 39+5 weeks, the SFH was above the 90th centile, indicating potential macrosomia (large birth weight).

Our client had a vaginal delivery at 40+5 weeks wherein she suffered a complication known as shoulder dystocia (where the baby’s shoulder gets stuck behind the mother’s public bone) and sustained a fourth-degree tear which needed surgical repair. The baby’s birth weight was 5300g (11lbs, 6oz). She now suffers severe faecal incontinence and urgency, as well as stress urinary incontinence.

Our client instructed RWK Goodman to investigate a claim for negligence.

Our maternal birth injury team instructed an obstetric expert who confirmed that there was a failure to arrange a growth scan, which would have confirmed that the baby was large. It was admitted by the hospital that our client should have been offered an early induction of labour at around 38-39 weeks or an elective caesarean section at 39-40 weeks. Our client testified that she would have opted for a caesarean section and therefore in that scenario she would have avoided the fourth-degree perineal tear and other injuries.

Our team also instructed experts to assess the extent of her birth injury, and we obtained medical reports from a colorectal surgeon, uro-gynaecologist and a psychiatrist. Our client continued to experience faecal and flatus incontinence, faecal urgency, and stress urinary incontinence. This was extremely distressing for our client and impacted on her ability to carry out normal day-to-day tasks. Our team of experts have advised that her symptoms will not improve without treatment and will likely deteriorate with age and hormonal changes.

We presented a comprehensive treatment schedule to the defendant hospital which included a Sacral Nerve Stimulation (SNS) device for the management of faecal incontinence, surgery for stress urinary incontinence and psychotherapy for the acute psychological distress she had suffered.

£300,000 was secured from the Defendant Hospital for our client’s compensation. This comprises of £110,000 for the pain and suffering associated with her extensive injury and the remainder for her financial losses, including her comprehensive future medical treatment.