A U.S. District judge has refused to grant summary judgment motions in an infant brain damage lawsuit filed against doctors at the National Naval Medical Center.

Parents Larry H. and Dana W. filed separate lawsuits that were later consolidated. The federal government is the named defendant, and it claimed the parents’ cases were filed after a two-year statute of limitations had passed as indicated by the Federal Tort Claims Act.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly said the court needed to take a closer look at when the parents were actually aware that their child had suffered brain damage.

The judge also rejected a motion from the parents who wanted summary judgment for the mother’s presuit administrative claim regarding the brain damage.

The infant brain damage lawsuit was filed because Dana gave birth to a son in April 2007 at the National Naval Medical Center and in March 2009, he was diagnosed with brain damage from a lack of oxygen. Dana filed an administrative complaint in 2010, which was initially dismissed in court. The D.C. Circuit court later revived the complaint.

Infant Brain Damage Lawsuit Shows Parents Received Mixed Messages

The infant boy was discharged from the hospital in June 2007 after he had endured some medical issues after his birth that April. The parents brought their son back to the hospital in September 2007 because he was experiencing feeding problems.

The baby was transferred to Walter Reed Army Medical Center and then to the Children’s National Medical Center and began to have seizures.

A CT scan and MRI showed a stroke and brain abnormalities, but Dr. Catherine Corriveau at Children’s National Medical Center was unable to determine if these conditions would have a long-term impact on the boy, who was discharged from the hospital in November 2007.

The federal government’s push for summary judgment was because the parents became aware of brain injuries in September 2007. The Federal Tort Claims Act states that a two-year statute of limitations applies from the date the knowledge of an injury becomes known to the date the presuit administrative complaint is filed.

The court responded, “At the very outset, the record evidence is equivocal on whether a stroke or a seizure are themselves ‘injuries,’ rather than the causes or symptoms of an underlying neurological disorder and whether a stroke occurred at all.”

The court indicated that the parents were told in November 2007 by another doctor that the boy “overcame all of these problems” from the September 2007 seizures and in December 2007 was found to have a normal mental state, a finding that is echoed in 2008 doctor visits as well, according to doucments provided in the infant brain damage lawsuit.

“(A) factfinder might very well determine that a reasonable person, when told by physicians that their son did not have a neurological disorder, would conclude that a stroke and several seizures did not result in a brain injury,” the court said. “On the other hand, the factfinder might conclude that the stroke and seizures were sufficient to put the parents on notice.”

The Infant Brain Damage Lawsuits are Case No. 1:12-cv-00916-CKK and Case No. 1:15-cv-00090-CKK, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.