Jury Awards Mother $4.25 Million for "Botched Epidural"

author by Joseph C. Maya on Apr. 24, 2017

Accident & Injury Accident & Injury  Medical Malpractice Lawsuit & Dispute  Lawsuit 

Summary: Blog post on a large award given to a woman for a botched epidural shot she received going into childbirth.

Contact the personal injury attorneys at Maya Murphy, P.C. today. We can help you get the just compensation you deserve for your injuries or those of a loved one. For a free initial consultation, call 203-221-3100 or email JMaya@Mayalaw.com.

In the case of Andrade v. Gacso and Medical Anesthesiology Associates, P.C., a mother filed a medical malpractice lawsuit after an anesthesiologist botched a painkilling epidural injection during childbirth.

On July 31, 2009, Erika Andrade went to St. Vincent’s Medical Center in Bridgeport to give birth to her third child. Andrade, 33 at the time, had no prior history of back problems. According to one of her lawyers, Sean McElligott, of Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, Andrade needed an epidural to control pain. The anesthesiologist, William Gacso, who is now 78, came in to perform the epidural after working for 24 hours straight. The anesthesiologist put the epidural needle in the wrong spot in her back, between the wrong vertebrae, the plaintiff ’s lawyer said. After the patient reported feeling pain, Gacso reportedly took the needle out and put it in the same spot and the same thing happened again. He went lower in her back the next time and the epidural helped with pain and Andrade delivered a healthy baby. A couple hours after the injections, Andrade was in agony again. Just placing a blanket over her leg caused excruciating pain, her lawyers said.

Andrade brought a medical malpractice lawsuit against Gacso and his employer, Medical Anesthesiology Associates in Shelton. The defense took the position that the hole in Andrade’s spine was so far from where the needle should have gone in for the epidural that it couldn’t have possibly been caused by Gacso. Instead, the defense argued that her ongoing pain is the result of a congenital condition that Andrade had all along but did not become symptomatic until after she gave birth. After the birth, Andrade dealt with painful sensations known as paresthesia. She had trouble walking for more than a short distance, as her leg would give out. Finally, a thoracic spine MRI revealed a hole in Andrade’s spine where Gacso had placed the needle. According to the lawsuit, the needle striking the spinal cord caused a cystic lesion. Other than taking pain medication, there is no treatment for the condition. Her lawyer says she is expected to incur medical expenses for many years. Plaintiff ’s attorneys say the defense never offered more than $150,000.

The jury awarded Andrade $4.25 million. Of that amount, $1 million was for past pain and suffering, $1 million for past loss of enjoyment of life’s activities, $1.12 million for future pain and suffering, and $1.12 million for future loss of enjoyment of life’s activities.

At Maya Murphy, P.C., our personal injury attorneys are dedicated to achieving the best results for individuals and their family members and loved ones whose daily lives have been disrupted by injury, whether caused by a motor vehicle or pedestrian accident, a slip and fall, medical malpractice, a defective product, or otherwise. Our attorneys are not afraid to aggressively pursue and litigate cases and have extensive experience litigating personal injury matters in both state and federal courts, and always with regard to the unique circumstances of our client and the injury he or she has sustained. 

Please contact Joseph C. Maya, Esq., at 203-221-3100, or at JMaya@mayalaw.com, to schedule a free consultation.

Source: Jeff Forte, Top Connecticut Verdicts & Settlements of 2015, CONN. LAW TRBN. at 8 (July 2016) discussing Erika Andrade v. William J. Gacso and Medical Anesthesiology Associates, P.C.

Legal Articles Additional Disclaimer

Lawyer.com is not a law firm and does not offer legal advice. Content posted on Lawyer.com is the sole responsibility of the person from whom such content originated and is not reviewed or commented on by Lawyer.com. The application of law to any set of facts is a highly specialized skill, practiced by lawyers and often dependent on jurisdiction. Content on the site of a legal nature may or may not be accurate for a particular state or jurisdiction and may largely depend on specific circumstances surrounding individual cases, which may or may not be consistent with your circumstances or may no longer be up-to-date to the extent that laws have changed since posting. Legal articles therefore are for review as general research and for use in helping to gauge a lawyer's expertise on a matter. If you are seeking specific legal advice, Lawyer.com recommends that you contact a lawyer to review your specific issues. See Lawyer.com's full Terms of Use for more information.

© 2025 LAWYER.COM INC.

Use of this website constitutes acceptance of Lawyer.com’s Terms of Use, Email, Phone, & Text Message and Privacy Policies.