The case involves Jan Paul Fruiterman, M.D. and Associates, P.C. appealing a judgment in a medical malpractice and wrongful death action brought by Ahmad and Hassini Waziri, representing the estate of their son, Syawach Waziri. The key point of contention is whether the Virginia Birth-Related Neurological Injury Compensation Act (the Compensation Act) applies to professional corporations like the P.C. The trial court denied the P.C.'s demurrer, ruling that the Compensation Act's rights and remedies do not extend to professional corporations. The jury initially awarded $750,000 against the P.C. for medical malpractice, later reduced to $730,000.
The evidence indicated that Dr. Fruiterman's Caesarian section was performed too late, leading to severe brain damage, resulting in the child’s death shortly after birth. The Compensation Act, enacted in 1987, was designed to address issues with medical malpractice insurance availability for obstetricians, establishing a compensation program with specific rights and remedies for birth-related neurological injuries, effectively excluding other common law remedies. A key aspect of the appeal is whether the P.C. can access the benefits of the Compensation Act, which the trial court ruled it cannot. The P.C. argues that the court misinterpreted legislative intent, a claim the court ultimately disagreed with, affirming the legislative purpose of ensuring affordable malpractice insurance and sustaining obstetric practice in Virginia.
Legislative intent regarding the Compensation Act is evidenced through the legislative history and specific documents from the General Assembly. The Act states that rights and remedies for infants are exclusive, excluding all common law rights for them and their representatives (38.2-5002(B)). Statutes that modify common law must be strictly interpreted (Schwartz v. Brownlee, 253 Va. 159). The Act defines 'participating physicians' and 'participating hospitals' with specific criteria, including the requirement for financial contributions to the program (38.2-5020). The courts are bound to uphold the plain meaning of legislative terms, indicating that the General Assembly did not intend to provide blanket immunity to all healthcare providers for malpractice related to birth injuries. Only those defined as 'participating' are granted immunity. The exclusion of other healthcare professionals, like pediatricians and radiologists, reinforces this limited scope.
Additionally, the professional corporation (P.C.) contested a jury award for non-economic damages, arguing it lacked reasonable relation to the evidence. However, the court found sufficient evidence supporting the jury's award of $655,973.46 for sorrow, mental anguish, and solace, affirming the trial court's judgment without merit in the P.C.'s claims.
