BY JOHN MCCANN

jmccann@heraldsun.com; 419-6601

DURHAM -- A settlement has been reached in a case that had a legal team for Duke University Health System, Inc., Duke University Medical Center and a couple of doctors fighting malpractice claims blaming hospital officials for the permanent brain injury suffered in 2000 by a baby who during delivery allegedly was without oxygen for 10 minutes.

"That, ladies and gentlemen, is the malpractice in this case," lawyer Hunter Shkolnik contended during opening arguments.

But shortly into the trial the lawsuit against the doctors was dismissed. Shkolnik would not disclose the monetary amount of the settlement but said the goal was to make sure the child's needs were met, and the lawyer said that was the ultimate outcome.

Mark Anderson was the lead lawyer representing Duke. What he aimed to make plain to jurors was that this lawsuit was filed seven years after the child's birth, and he wanted to make it clear that the brain injuries incurred by the child occurred prior to birth and not as the result of medical professionals stifling the baby's oxygen supply.

Shkolnik was representing plaintiff Phillip Evans, the guardian ad litem of the child in question who in the complaint is identified as J. Doe, born Oct. 9, 2000. Durham County Department of Social Services was appointed as the legal custodian of the child on Oct. 12, 2004. DSS approved Evans to become the child's guardian.

Anderson described the physicians at the hospital as "great" and "caring" individuals who did the best they could with the tools they had both before and during J. Doe's birth, and the lawyer said the child continues to get the very best medical care.

"We are certainly pleased that the plaintiffs voluntarily chose to dismiss the doctors from the case," Anderson said. "As sometimes happens, both sides, with the assistance of the court, determine that it makes more sense to resolve the case rather than expend the time and expense of several more weeks in trial -- although certainly for the lawyer it's more satisfying to hear a final jury verdict. In this case, however, a resolution made sense in light of the burdens on the individuals involved and the court system."