46. Against said ruling, on May 8, 2000, the complaint filed an extraordinary federal appeal in which it also
requested recusal “against the members of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation […] for the purpose of
establishing a high court with members who do not have any authority over the MEDICAL EXAMINERS
CORPS.”54 Said appeal was ruled inadmissible by the National Criminal Cassation Court on October 17, 2000,
because it deemed that it was challenging assessment of evidence and because it did not provide any grounds
for the arbitrariness.55
4. Civil suit for damages. Case file 42.229/94 entitled “Avaro Miguel Ángel v. Fernández, Silvia and
others for damages”
47. The lawsuit was filed by Mr. Miguel Ángel Avaro on May 31, 1994 against the physicians responsible for
providing medical care to Ms. Cristina Britez Arce, against the Hospital Materno Infantil Ramón Sardá, and
against the government of the City of Buenos Aires, for negligence, incompetence, and carelessness.56
48. On July 24, 2000, the physician Eduardo Roberto Barrón submitted an official expert report as ordered by
the civil judge in charge of Court No. 101, Alejandro C. Verdaguer, answering ten questions about the care
provided to Ms. Britez during her pregnancy, as well as on June 1, 1992. He indicated that “38 years of age and
a background of high blood pressure HBP prior to pregnancy are high-risk factors for hypertension. In other
words, the pregnancy of Ms. Britez Arce can be deemed to be at high risk of developing hypertension during
the pregnancy. […] According to the antecedents, Ms. Britez Arce had high blood pressure prior to the
pregnancy. She did not have high blood pressure during the pregnancy that is the subject of the present
complaint. […] to ensure suitable conditions at the time of childbirth an evaluation of the heart should have
been carried out at that time, but according to the checkups described and blood pressure readings for the
patient there was no increased cardiac risk […] excessive weight gain is a risk factor […]. There was no
indication of a possible miscarriage. […] Yes, the treatment followed by the physicians to not perform a
Cesarean section and to induce labor for delivery was the adequate one in terms of form, place, and method.”57
49. On November 27, 2008, the physician Ángel Miguel Cabarcas, designated by the claimant, submitted an
expert report.58 Among his observations, he stated that “there was hypertension and if the excessive gain in
weight is added to that we will have hypertension in the current pregnancy and excessive gain in weight, all of
which tends to establish a condition of PREECLAMPSIA.” Regarding the ultrasound scan of May 19, 1992, he
indicated that “on the basis of the gestation period, she was 39 weeks pregnant, but it was mistakenly reported
that she was at 36 weeks […]. This placenta is talking about a pregnancy carried to full term with possible signs
of ageing. This points to admitting Ms. Britez Arce to the hospital and conducting routine lab tests, examining
fetal maturity, blood cholesterol levels, ocular fundus (to detect infarcts in the retina and partial detachments
in the retina), measuring blood pressure twice a day, monitoring urine, etc. […] Admittance to the hospital is
not the indication of an enlightened person but rather the result of observation and experience that are clearly
manifest.” The expert also pointed out that the fact that she was not prescribed any kind of diet, especially since
she had antecedents of preeclampsia, indicates failure to provide preventive measures.59
50. On November 25, 2009, the judgment of the court of first instance was issued, dismissing the claim because
of the following observations:
[…] the expert medical examiner designated in the proceedings (Dr. Daniel F. Adaro) recognized that it is not
possible to determine conclusively the cause of death of Ms. Arce, because there was no autopsy carried out
immediately after her death (see pages 533 verso and 1208 verso)―impossibility never challenged by any of the
parties―and it disrupted the causal connection (set forth in the claim) between the death of Ms. Arce and the care
she was given during her pregnancy in the Sardá Mother’s Hospital when stating that “the cause of death of the
Extraordinary federal appeal of May 8, 2000. Annex to the initial petition.
Brief of July 19, 2005 from the state.
56 Claim for damages. Annex to the brief of January 10, 2016 from the petitioners.
57 Expert opinion by Dr. Eduardo R. Barrón, July 24, 2000. Annex to the brief of January 10, 2016 from the petitioners.
58 Expert opinion by Dr. Ángel M. Cabarcas, November 27, 2008. Annex to the brief of January 10, 2016 from the petitioners.
59 Expert opinion by Dr. Ángel M. Cabarcas, November 27, 2008. Annex to the brief of January 10, 2016 from the petitioners.
54
55
11