A woman whose baby boy died during pregnancy wants a health agency to pay her $350,000 after it was found the care it provided was inadequate.<\/p>\n
The woman, who in 2018 was in her 20s, lived with several conditions, including type 1 diabetes.<\/p>\n
During her pregnancy that year, she received care from the midwifery, obstetrics and endocrinology services at Health New Zealand Te Whatu Ora Taranaki.<\/p>\n
But when she was eight months pregnant, she felt something was wrong with her baby, and, during a subsequent check-up with the obstetrics team, it was confirmed he had died.<\/p>\n
Shortly afterwards the woman, who can not be named, raised a complaint with the Health and Disability Commissioner (HDC).<\/p>\n
She complained staff at Taranaki Base Hospital did not acknowledge that her pregnancy was “high-risk” and on several occasions when she raised concerns, she felt she was being perceived as “over-anxious”.<\/p>\n
The woman also told the HDC no investigations were undertaken in the final three weeks of her pregnancy, despite an escalation in a range of symptoms.<\/p>\n
Five years later, the HDC released its findings, with Deputy Commissioner Rose Wall ruling that Te Whatu Ora Taranaki had breached the Code of Health and Disability Services Consumers’ Rights (the Code) in its management of the woman’s diabetes throughout her pregnancy.<\/p>\n
Wall, who said her role was not to determine what caused the baby’s death, found Te Whatu Ora Taranaki did not have an established antenatal diabetes multidisciplinary team in place at the time.<\/p>\n
As a result, the obstetrics and diabetes teams provided the woman with care from separate clinics, which created a disconnect between the specialities and prevented effective co-ordination of clinical care.<\/p>\n
In August 2023, one month after the HDC issued its report, the woman filed a statement of claim with the Human Rights Review Tribunal (HRRT).<\/p>\n
She alleged Te Whatu Ora Taranaki breached her rights under the Code in respect of the healthcare she received during her pregnancy.<\/p>\n
The woman’s claim stated she became pregnant, was put into the care of the Taranaki Health Board, that the care did not meet the Code, and she gave birth to a stillborn son.<\/p>\n
However, according to an HRRT decision on the matter, Te Whatu Ora Taranaki denied the woman’s claim and applied to have it struck out on the grounds it failed “to disclose a reasonable cause of action and is otherwise an abuse of process”.<\/p>\n
It stated the claim “went beyond the breach findings made by the HDC” and was therefore outside the tribunal’s jurisdiction to determine.<\/p>\n
Following a direction from the HRRT, the woman amended her statement of claim and alleged Te Whatu Ora Taranaki had breached the Human Rights Act.<\/p>\n
“I gave birth to my stillborn son at Taranaki Base Hospital. Because of the lack of communication between departments, they failed to give appropriate care,” the amended claim read.<\/p>\n
“The consequences of this have left me unable to function normally, that I do not feel safe in hospital and can not cope in stressful situations.”<\/p>\n
The woman opposed the health agency’s strike-out application.<\/p>\n
Te Whatu Ora submitted that she was only able to bring proceedings in respect of the HDC’s specific breach findings, contending her claim primarily regarded the stillbirth and its impact upon her.<\/p>\n
“There is no connection between the stillbirth and the HDC’s breach findings, which it says are limited to the care [the woman] received regarding her diabetes,” the decision stated, referring to Te Whatu Ora’s submission.<\/p>\n
“In taking this position, Te Whatu Ora draws an inference from the level of damages [the woman] seeks ($350,000).<\/p>\n
“Te Whatu Ora submits that ‘it is not reasonably arguable’ that [she] could have suffered the level of stress required to justify the damages sought because of Te Whatu Ora’s management of her diabetes, and that ‘the only available inference’ is that the damages sought by [her] relate to the stress she suffered because of the stillbirth.”<\/p>\n
However, in its recent decision, the tribunal ruled that a strike-out application was not the appropriate way to determine those matters.<\/p>\n
Whether damages should be awarded and if so, at what level, should be determined after the collection of evidence and submissions from the parties.<\/p>\n
The tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the woman’s claim and that the claim was not an abuse of process.<\/p>\n
It acknowledged Te Whatu Ora’s concerns regarding the way in which the woman had progressed her claim, accepting she had not met various tribunal directions.<\/p>\n
However, it ruled her claim has merit.<\/p>\n
Te Whatu Ora’s application to strike out the woman’s claim was dismissed, and the tribunal directed that another hearing be scheduled to progress the case.<\/p>\n