California Medical Malpractice Attorney
Medical Malpractice Lawyer Get to know our team Medical Malpractice News Articles Client Testimonials FAQ Español Read our Blog Contact Our Firm Click Here to visit an easy to print page
Medical Malpractice Videos
Information Center
Medical Malpractice
Anesthesia Malpractice
Bilirubin
Birth Injuries
Brain Cooling
Brain Injuries
Cancer Misdiagnosis
Cerebral Palsy
Elder Abuse
ER & Hospital Negligence
Erb's Palsy or Brachial Plexus
Kaiser Malpractice
Kernicterus
Labor & Delivery Problems
Medication Errors
Mental Retardation
Misdiagnosis
Nursing Home Negligence
Paraplegia & Quadriplegia
Pitocin
Premature Delivery
Surgical Malpractice
Wrongful Death
Contact us
Need answers fast, but can't call right now? Fill out the quick response form below and we will contact you shortly:








(800) 541-9376
The Best Lawyers in America

Cannon Hoops v. The Regents of the University of California

Dr. Fagel achieved a settlement of $6 million on behalf of a 4-year-old boy who now suffers from cerebral palsy as a result of asphyxia occurring the birth process.  Numerous instances of maternal and fetal heart rates irregularities were not acted upon by the presiding doctor.

Seven hours after the mother was admitted to the hospital, at approximately 9:08 pm, the fetal monitor began to show signs of fetal bradycardia. The fetal monitor indicated the presence of fetal bradycardia 3 additional times throughout the episode at 9:18pm, 10:08pm and 10:38 pm. The nurse never documented any fetal heart rate abnormalities whatsoever and the administering doctor, Dr. Graves, declined to place an IFE. Additionally, at 9:18, the doctor left to deliver another baby. When Dr. Graves returned, the fetal heart rate had dropped from between 100-110 to 50 beats per minute. At that point, the doctor requested that a medical student assist him with the delivery.Cannon was born at 10:54pm with severe perinatal asphyxia and multi-system organ failure.

Cannon Hoops was diagnosed with Cerebral Palsy and will require assisted living throughout his life.  Cannon will need basic assistance with all self help and adaptive skills during all hours of the day and is severely impaired in all motor, oral and communication function.

Dr. Graves alleged that he did not order an IFE due to an unspoken look given to him by his patient.  Additionally, Dr. Graves initially alleged that he had no level of concern and believed that the fetal tracings were reassuring and did not indicate signs of fetal bradycardia.  However, presiding Nurse Duncan testified that she did not remember the patient refusing treatment or any actions by Mrs. Hoops that altered her care. Additionally, at the end of the deposition, Dr. Graves modifies his testimony, stating he had some level of concern.  Dr. Graves admitted that roughly 40 minutes prior to delivery the tracing levels were non-reassuring yet he never considered a cesarean section or placement of the IFE. Although Dr. Graves testified that Mrs. Hoops was offered and refused an episiotomy an hour before delivery, there is no chart record that this event occurred.

Additionally, our attorneys alleged that an IFE would have clearly distinguished the maternal from fetal heartbeat, demonstrating an increasingly depressed fetus and nonreassuring tracing. The information would have proved sufficient to intervene prior to vaginal delivery, most likely around the time Dr. Graves was delivering another baby. Cannon Hoops was neurologically normal when his mother entered the hospital and the negligence of the defendant was a substantial factor in his permanent birth injury.


Dr Bruce G. Fagel & Associates
Medical Malpractice Information Center
California Medical Malpractice California Nursing Home Negligence
California Cerebral Palsy Attorney California Kaiser Malpractice Cases
California Birth Injury Cases Riverside Medical Malpractice Attorney
The information on this website is for general information purposes only. Nothing on this site should be taken as legal advice for any individual case or situation. This information is not intended to create, and receipt or viewing does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship.