Siblings’ Lead Poisoning Blamed On Landlords And Doctor
Thursday, June 21st, 2007From their respective births in 1998 and 1999, plaintiffs Tia Burnett and Lennard Burnett resided in an apartment that was located at 257 Jefferson Ave., in Brooklyn. In February 2000, Tia, Lennard and their mother moved to an apartment that was located at 339 Saratoga Ave., in Brooklyn. They resided there until July 2001. During that period, they underwent routine pediatric care that was administered by doctors of Interfaith Medical Center, in Brooklyn.Tia and Lennard were exposed to lead-based paint at both residences. Tia was born Jan. 4, 1998. Her lead levels while residing at 257 Jefferson Ave. were tested and found to be 15 mcg/dL on Jan. 5, 1999; 14 mcg/dL on Aug. 10, 1999; 18 mcg/dL on Nov. 10, 1999; and 27 mcg/dL on Dec. 14, 1999. Her lead levels while residing at 339 Saratoga Ave. were found to be 33 mcg/dL on Feb. 7, 2000; 13 mcg/dL on May 1, 2000; 18 mcg/dL on July 19, 2000; 3 mcg/dL on Dec. 14, 2000; 6 mcg/dL on March 13, 2001; and 6 mcg/dL on June 25, 2001. (Editor’s note: 10 mcg/dL is the generally accepted toxicity threshold.) Her lead levels were not tested by Interfaith Medical Center at six months or at any time prior to her one-year visit.
Lennard was born Jan 5, 1999. His lead levels while residing at 257 Jefferson Ave. were tested and found to be 8 mcg/dL on June 3 1999; 11 mcg/dL on Aug. 10, 1999; 24 mcg/dL on Nov. 10, 1999; and 24 mcg/dL on Dec. 14, 1999. His lead levels while residing at 339 Saratoga Ave. were tested and found to be 26 mcg/dL on Feb. 7, 2000; 8 mcg/dL on May 1, 2000; 13 mcg/dL on July 19, 2000; 3 mcg/dL on Dec. 14, 2000; 6 mcg/dL on March 13, 2001; and 5 mcg/dL on June 25, 2001.
The children’s mother, Jasmine Burnett, claimed that the exposure resulted in lead poisoning that produced permanent cognitive impairment.
Jasmine Burnett, acting individually and on behalf of Tia and Lennard, sued the owner and landlord of 257 Jefferson Ave., Leonora Rennie; the owner and landlord of 339 Saratoga Ave., Oswald Jeffers; and Interfaith Medical Center. Burnett alleged that Jeffers and Rennie failed to detect and abate any lead paint from their respective buildings or advise her of a possible lead-paint hazard. She further alleged that Interfaith Medical Center’s doctors failed to consistently perform risk assessments for the children’s exposure to lead paint, that the doctors failed to provide anticipatory guidance concerning the dangers of lead paint, and that their failures constituted medical malpractice.
She claimed that she complained to both landlords about lead paint while residing in their apartments. She contended that Rennie failed to abate the condition, despite an Order to Abate Nuisance of Lead issued by the New York City Department of Health. She acknowledged that Jeffers made efforts, but she contended that his efforts were not sufficient.
Prior to the trial, the plaintiffs and Rennie agreed to a $75,000 settlement. Jeffers defaulted. The matter proceeded to a trial against Interfaith Medical Center.
Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed that Interfaith Medical Center deviated from the standard of care by failing to perform a lead assessment at every well-child visit. She contended that the hospital’s records reflected that the required lead-risk assessments were not done in a timely manner and that lead-anticipatory guidance was not provided until after the infants were poisoned.
Although Tia was seen on her 6-months-of-age well-child visit, plaintiffs counsel argued that the records showed that no lead-test result was obtained. She contended that Tia was not given a prescription to have a lead test performed. At two subsequent visits for Tia, no follow-up testing or inquiry was made regarding the six-month test, and when Tia was finally tested at age 1, she was found to be lead poisoned with a lead level of 14 mcg/dL. Plaintiffs’ counsel claimed that, on the same day, which was Lennard’s first visit, the Interfaith Medical Center staff failed to note in Lennard’s records that his sibling, Tia, was poisoned. She contended that this should have been a red flag that he was at risk for lead poisoning and that anticipatory guidance should have been provided in both cases. She further claimed that Burnett was not made aware of Tia’s or Lennard’s test results at the time they were taken or given anticipatory guidance concerning lead-paint dangers.
Interfaith Medical Center claimed that it provided good care and treatment and that the children were timely tested. It argued that the notes made in its records by Dr. Nader Mishreki documented that anticipatory guidance and lead-risk assessment were discussed with Burnett for Tia starting on Oct. 13, 1998. On this date, there is a reference to “anticipatory guidance.”
As to Lennard, Interfaith argued that there was reference to “anticipatory guidance” at the first well-child visit when Lennard was 2.5 weeks old. At this visit, Lennard was also being referred for genetic counseling for multiple dark, hyperpigmented spots on his body. Interfaith contended that there were many references to anticipatory guidance for both infants throughout Tia’s chart.
Interfaith further argued that it followed New York State Department of Housing requirements and that it timely reported elevated blood levels. It maintained that the only treatment for children who have elevated blood-lead levels of less than 45 mcg/dL is education, good hand-washing, good nutrition, cleansing of all bottles and pacifiers, and the covering of any chipping paint. Interfaith claimed that chelation therapy is only necessary when the blood-lead level is confirmed at or above 45 mcg/dL. Interfaith also contended that it and the New York City Department of Housing were both involved in educating Burnett about lead-poisoning prevention and reducing the risk to her children starting in 1999, and therefore, that the hospital met the standard of care.
Interfaith’s expert pediatrician testified that Interfaith did not depart from the standards of medical care.
Burnett claimed that Tia, now 9, suffers diminution of IQ and cognitive deficits as a result of the lead exposure. Tia participates in a regular classroom, and she is required to go to a resource room daily for special assistance from a special-education teacher.
Burnett claimed that Lennard, now 8, also suffers cognitive deficits and diminution of IQ as a result of lead exposure. He is also in a regular classroom, but he has a special-education teacher present and assigned to him at all times. Burnett contended that Lennard will require ongoing occupational therapy, tutoring and special schooling.
The plaintiffs’ neuropsychological expert testified that Tia and Lennard suffer cognitive deficits consistent with lead poisoning. The children’s pediatrician testified that Tia and Lennard will require medical monitoring for the rest of their lives to gauge the consequences and risks from lead poisoning. He contended that he did not expect either child to graduate from high school.
Burnett sought recovery of the children’s future medical expenses and damages for their past and future pain and suffering. She also presented a loss-of-services claim, but that claim was withdrawn prior to the trial.
Interfaith’s expert neuropsychologist and its examining pediatric neurologist testified that Tia and Lennard did not sustain any neurological injuries. Interfaith claimed that their alleged injuries, including speech delays, difficulties in school, diminution of IQ and cognitive deficits are not related to lead poisoning and are not the result of any alleged departures from the standards of medical care.
The jury found Interfaith 60% negligent and Rennie 40% negligent. It did not assign negligence against Jeffers, who defaulted. The jury found that Tia’s damages totaled $2.47 million and that Lennard’s damages totaled $2.57 million. The offset of Rennie’s liability produced net recoveries of $1,482,000 and $1,542,000 respectively. Those amounts, combined with the pretrial settlement, total $3,099,000.