A Chester County, Pennsylvania, jury has returned a $7.7 million verdict in a birth injury case involving allegations of prolonged second-stage labor and delayed neonatal resuscitation. The parents of the child, Christine Soring and Andrew Bailey, contend that their son suffered severe hypoxic brain injury after clinicians permitted Soring to remain in the second stage of labor for more than seven hours—more than twice what the family characterized as the normal range—before proceeding to cesarean delivery. They also alleged that resuscitative efforts were not timely after delivery, during a period in which the newborn was briefly declared dead before showing signs of life minutes later.
Prolonged Labor, Delivery Decisions, and Alleged Deviations From Care
According to the complaint, Soring’s pregnancy was complicated by elevated blood pressure and a diagnosis of preeclampsia, alongside uterine anatomy described as small and differently shaped. The family alleges that although delivery at 37 weeks was recommended, the delivery was delayed by six days. On June 7, 2021, Soring was admitted with dangerously high blood pressure, and an induction process lasted approximately 38 hours. The suit further asserts that Soring then remained in the second stage of labor for more than seven hours before a cesarean section was performed, a duration the family contends significantly exceeded accepted practice.
The plaintiffs alleged that extending the second stage increased the risk of fetal hypoxia and related neurological injury, framing the extended duration as a breach of the applicable standard of care. They also asserted that when the child was delivered, he was apneic and hypotonic and had an umbilical cord wrapped around his neck three times. The pleading describes the newborn being declared dead shortly before 3 p.m., then gasping minutes later, and links that sequence to later-identified brain damage. The parents claim the child continues to experience seizures and developmental delays, including persistent speech deficits.
Trial Record and the Jury’s Allocation of Liability
After a 14-day trial, the jury found obstetrician Dr. Jared Tepper negligent and concluded that his conduct fell below the relevant standard of care and caused harm to the child. Tepper was practicing at the time under Regional Women’s Health Group LLC, identified in filings as Axia Women’s Health, and counsel for the family indicated the verdict will likely be borne by Axia. According to the family’s counsel, the verdict is expected to be entered as a judgment of approximately $9.5 million after the addition of legally available amounts.
The litigation originally included several physicians and hospital entities, including Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and Chester County Hospital, but only three defendants remained at the time of deliberations. The jury ultimately imposed liability only on Tepper. The plaintiffs were represented by Kline & Specter PC, according to court filings. The defense position, as summarized by Tepper’s counsel in a statement, was that the evidence did not establish a breach of the standard of care that caused harm and that post-trial motions and appellate options were being evaluated.
Procedural Posture and Practical Implications for Post-Trial Review
The case was filed in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas nearly four years after the delivery, and it proceeded through discovery and trial to a plaintiff verdict identifying a single physician as the responsible actor among multiple originally named defendants. That posture can shape post-trial practice, including challenges to causation proof and arguments directed at the weight of the evidence where liability is concentrated on one defendant. In medical negligence matters, defendants commonly pursue post-trial relief on grounds such as alleged evidentiary error, improper jury instructions, or insufficient evidence supporting a finding of breach or causation, with appellate review typically focusing on preserved issues and the applicable standard of review.
If judgment is entered as anticipated, the parties may address questions of molding the verdict, delay damages where applicable, and any offsets or allocation issues arising from prior dismissals or settlements with other defendants. The complaint’s factual themes—timing of cesarean delivery after prolonged second-stage labor and the immediacy of neonatal resuscitation—also underscore how labor-management decisions and delivery-room response time can become central liability issues. The matter is captioned *Soring et al. v. Askinas et al.*, No. 2022-05818-TT, in the Court of Common Pleas of Chester County, Pennsylvania.
