Parents sue hospital after premature baby’s neck fatally broken: Lawsuit
Gianna Lopera
(ORLANDO, Fla.) — The parents of a newborn who died months after birth are suing a Florida hospital, alleging a worker broke the baby’s neck, ultimately killing her, according to the lawsuit.
The infant, Jahxy Peets, was born prematurely at 24 weeks in June 2022 at the Orlando Health Winnie Palmer Hospital for Women & Babies, according to the family’s lawsuit. Immediately following her birth, she was admitted to the neonatal intensive care unit and intubated.
About two weeks later, the baby was found to have a broken neck, according to the lawsuit. The spinal cord injury led to her being paralyzed and unable to breathe on her own, the lawsuit alleges. She died of her injuries in November 2022.
The lawsuit alleges a hospital worker broke Jahxy’s neck, injuring her spinal cord, “and then put her back in the incubator without notifying anyone.”
“This type of spinal cord injury could not occur without the use of excessive force when handling a newborn,” the lawsuit states. “There is no note in the medical record documenting the excessive-force event which caused this traumatic injury, and no indication in the medical record that an investigation was performed to identify and bring to justice the individual who caused this devastating injury.”
The injury “was either not recognized or was not reported,” making it appear “that an attempt to cover up the cause of Jahxy’s injury was made,” the lawsuit alleges. Her parents, Gianna Lopera and Jamiah Peets, said they were not informed of the event.
Lopera said at a press conference Monday they “deserve answers” about what happened to Jahxy.
“Every parent whose baby is born at Winnie Palmer deserves to know what happened to Jahxy,” Lopera said. “By covering it up, they are leaving room for it to happen again.”
Lopera spoke through tears about what the loss of her daughter has meant to her and her family.
“I never got a chance to hear my daughter cry. She never got a chance to meet her siblings or her family. We never celebrated a single milestone. We only held her four times in her entire life,” she said.
In a statement to ABC News, a spokesperson for the hospital said they “will not address specific medical cases publicly but will share that the delivery of care to extremely premature babies is complex and emotional work for parents, doctors, and nurses.”
“We offer our deepest sympathies to this family, and to any family who suffers the loss of a child, but also believe those who provide care in this environment should be judged on facts, not speculation. We look forward to discussing the facts of this case in the appropriate forum,” the spokesperson said.
(WASHINGTON) — President-elect Donald Trump has ambitious plans to utilize U.S. federal lands for the extraction of natural resources.
But Trump – who promised at the Republican National Convention in July to “drill, baby, drill” if he were to be reelected – may not be able to accomplish the vast majority of his plans due to existing protections and the way federal lands are defined, environmental law experts told ABC News.
Trump won’t be able to “just turn on the spigot” for new oil and gas drilling on day one of his administration, Athan Manuel, director of the Sierra Club’s Lands Protection Program, told ABC News.
“Every administration gets to the place where they have to differentiate between the rhetoric that they use in the campaign and the actual challenges when it comes to actually governing,” Stan Meiburg, executive director of Wake Forest University’s Sabin Family Center for Environment and Sustainability, told ABC News.
National parks, wilderness areas, wildlife refuges, military reservations and public-domain lands are owned and managed by the federal government.
Public land is intended to be used for public benefit, but for the last century or so, that definition has sometimes been conflated to also include the extraction of natural resources, such as oil, gas, minerals and timber, according to Peter Colohan, director of federal strategies at the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, a nonpartisan think tank.
Federal lands are “for the benefit and enjoyment of all people,” Colohan told ABC News, evoking the famous phrase by former President Teddy Roosevelt that’s inscribed on the arch at north entrance of Yellowstone National Park.
Trump carried out what environmentalists widely regarded as an anti-environmental policy regime during his first term, withdrawing from the Paris Agreement to address climate change upon taking office in 2016 – which he has said he plans to do again, reversing President Biden’s Jan. 20, 2021 action to rejoin the agreement – removing clean water and air pollution protections, and fast-tracking environmental reviews of dozens of major energy and infrastructure projects, such as drilling and fuel pipelines, which Trump has said would help boost American energy production and the economy.
During his next term, Trump also has promised to drastically increase fossil fuels production in the U.S., despite the U.S. already producing and exporting a record amount of crude oil under the Biden administration.
“I think it’s an absolute certainty that Trump is going to push to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 19.3 million acres in northeastern Alaska that provides critical habitat to several species, to unfettered oil drilling, as well as areas outside of the refuge along the Alaska coast,” Kierán Suckling, executive director for the Center for Biological Diversity, told ABC News. “He’s been gunning for that for years.”
The Trump transition team did not immediately respond to an ABC News request for comment on this story.
Regulatory challenges
The president and the executive branch may have a “great deal of discretion” over control of public lands and monuments, but existing laws to protect lands like the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will be difficult to overturn, Suckling said.
Since the 1970s, a slew of environment regulations have been put in place to protect the U.S. landscape, such as the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency in 1970, followed by the Clean Water Act in 1972 and the Endangered Species Act in 1973. The Clean Air Act was established in 1963 and has been amended several times since, the first time in 1970.
Because of this legal environmental infrastructure, it would be virtually impossible for Trump to easily or unilaterally change these protections, the experts said. In order for the Trump administration to overturn regulations against use of protected lands for energy production, he would have to present evidence to demonstrate that the proposed actions would not violate existing environmental laws, Suckling said.
“You have to use the best science available and if the science does not support your policy, the law is not going to permit you to do it,” Suckling said.
The day after Trump won reelection, President Joe Biden moved to narrow the scope of the lease in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, signed by Trump in 2017, to limit oil drilling. The Biden administration found “legal deficiencies” in the leases that would have made it possible for the Trump administration to expand fossil fuel production, Colohan said.
The biggest roadblock to Trump’s plans to drill on federally protected lands is whether or not those areas are actually economically competitive, compared to places where people are drilling on private land using hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, Meiburg said.
However, most federal lands are not protected, Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation at Earthjustice, told ABC News. For such unprotected lands, it’s possible for Trump to issue an executive order to lease them for energy production. Even so, whenever a decision is being made to lease public land, “there will be a legal battle for sure,” Colohan said, adding that executive orders are “more reversible” than an existing statutory regulation.
Environmental activist resistance
In order for Trump to open federal land for leasing, his administration is required by law to notify the public, with environmental lawyers certain to be ready to challenge him.
“Environmental laws are carefully designed to produce a stable, democratic, scientific outcome,” Suckling said. “You can’t just get in and jump around and do whatever you want, and that’s why the United States has one of the best-protected environments – one of the cleanest, healthiest environments of any nation on earth,”
During Trump’s first term, the Biological Center for Diversity sued his administration 266 times and won about 90% of those actions, Suckling said. Earthjustice filed about 200 lawsuits against the Trump administration and won about 85% of them, according to Caputo.
“We’re going to have to sue their pants off every chance we get,” the Sierra Club’s Manuel said.
The Trump administration will likely face opposition from other stakeholders as well, such as Native American tribes, which could be impacted should federal land be leased for energy extraction, Meiburg said.
Trump’s loss in the 2020 election may have been the speed bump needed to thwart his agenda for federal lands, some experts also said. Now that he’s been reelected four years later, he’s essentially a one-term president and many of his proposed actions could be tied up in litigation for years, Suckling said.
Conversely, had Trump had eight consecutive years in office, it may have afforded him the continuity to enact more sweeping changes regarding use of federal lands, Caputo said. Should the House or Senate flip to Democratic control after the midterm elections, Trump’s agenda would likely be blunted even more, Manuel said.
However, it’s also challenging for land managers and environmental agencies when there’s constant turnover in the regulatory environment because it can slow progress for environmental protections, Colohan said.
All land is under pressure – whether for development, extraction of resources, agricultural use, climate change or biodiversity loss, Colohan said. But federal lands carry the ideal of conservation for the public benefit, recreation, cultural purposes, and for climate mitigation and resilience, he added.
“Those things are the better, the longer-term benefits that come from conservation,” Colohan said. “And so that’s really a choice that’s made by every administration.”
(STARR COUNTY, Texas) — Texas Land Commissioner Dawn Buckingham is offering the incoming Trump administration 1,402 acres the state purchased along the Texas-Mexico border to be used in a mass deportation operation.
In a letter to President-elect Donald Trump, Buckingham said she’s offering the land “to be used to construct deportation facilities.”
The Texas General Land Office purchased the plot of land from a farmer in October to facilitate Texas’ efforts to build a wall.
“My office is fully prepared to enter into an agreement with the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or the United States Border Patrol to allow a facility to be built for the processing, detention, and coordination of the largest deportation of violent criminals in the nation’s history,” Buckingham wrote in the letter, dated Tuesday.
The move shows that despite the Democratic governors of California and Arizona, two other southern border states, pledging not to aid the Trump administration’s mass deportation plans, the incoming administration will have allies in Republican-led states.
Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs told ABC News Live on Monday that she would not use state police or the National Guard to help with mass deportation.
“We will not be participating in misguided efforts that harm our communities,” she said.
Trump on Monday confirmed he would declare a national emergency to carry out his campaign promise of mass deportations of migrants living in the U.S. without legal permission, and pledged to get started on the mass deportations as soon as he enters office.
A spokeswoman for the Trump transition team said the president-elect will “marshal every lever of power” to launch his mass deportation plans.
“Local and state officials on the frontlines of the Harris-Biden border invasion have been suffering for four years and are eager for President Trump to return to the Oval Office. On day one, President Trump will marshal every lever of power to secure the border, protect their communities, and launch the largest mass deportation operation of illegal immigrant criminals in history,” Karoline Leavitt said.
In an interview with Fox News, which first reported the news of the Texas General Land Office’s offer, Buckingham reiterated she is “100% on board” with the incoming administration’s promise to deport criminals.
The plot of land is in Starr County, about 35 miles west of McAllen, Texas.
“Now it’s essentially farmland, so it’s flat, it’s easy to build on. We can very easily put a detention center on there — a holding place as we get these criminals out of our country,” she told Fox News.
(NEW YORK) — Closing arguments began Monday in the trial of Daniel Penny over the May 2023 subway chokehold death of Jordan Neely.
Penny, a 25-year-old former Marine, put Neely, a 30-year-old homeless man, in a six-minute-long chokehold after Neely boarded a subway car acting erratically, according to police. Neely entered a subway car on an uptown F train at the Second Avenue stop, and was described by witnesses as yelling and moving erratically when Penny put Neely in a chokehold, officials said.
Penny is charged with manslaughter and negligent homicide in Neely’s death. He pleaded not guilty.
He faces up to 15 years in prison if he’s convicted of manslaughter. There is no minimum sentence.
The proceedings began late so the defense could fix two audio exhibits. The prosecutors alleged the defense had “willy nilly edited” the audio and “taken out what they don’t like.” Assistant District Attorney Dafna Yoran said it would be misleading for the jury to hear an edited excerpt.
The judge agreed, and the defense recut the exhibits, so jurors were clear they were hearing edited portions.
The delay means the jury will likely not begin deliberations until Tuesday. If necessary, the judge asked jurors to consider continuing their deliberations Wednesday, when the trial did not sit.
The defense’s closing arguments
The defense attorney, Steven Raiser, asked jurors in closing arguments to imagine they were on the train that day, conjuring the scene with sound effects of closing doors, a train pulling out of a station and police body camera footage of passengers saying Neely “scared the living daylights out of everybody.”
A “violent and desperate” Jordan Neely entered the uptown F train on May 1, 2023, “filled with rage and not afraid of any consequences,” causing passengers to be “frozen with fear” before Daniel Penny “acted to save those people,” a defense attorney said Monday during closing arguments at Penny’s manslaughter and negligent homicide trial.
In its summation, the defense challenged the prosecution’s assertion that Penny held Neely in a chokehold for “way too long,” and did not let go for almost six minutes. Raiser said Penny did not intend to kill Neely but did not let go because Neely was fighting back.
“Of course, he didn’t. He had to remain in place out of fear that Neely would break free,” Raiser said.
The city’s medical examiner concluded Penny’s chokehold killed Neely. The defense argued Neely died from a genetic condition and the synthetic marijuana found in his system.
Defense attorney Steve Raiser argued that Penny “was not applying a textbook Marine blood choke because his purpose was not to render Mr. Neely unconscious,” Raiser said. Raiser said Penny applied a chokehold “in a less aggressive manner,” reflecting his character.
“He could have squeezed Mr. Neely to unconsciousness,” Raiser said. “Instead, he laid with him on the dirty subway floor while the smell of uncleanliness…and feces enveloped him.”
The defense summation included an image of the two men on the subway floor: “It’s basic human instinct to grab at the arm choking you. You don’t see that here because Danny’s not choking him,” Raiser said.
Raiser argued Penny was not applying pressure on Neely’s neck in the hold’s final 51 seconds and the whole case represented a rush to judgment: “This was not a chokehold death,” Raiser said. “They failed to prove their case, period.”
During the trial
During the trial, prosecutors argued that Penny went “way too far,” holding Neely around the neck for nearly six minutes, past the point when he posed a threat. About 30 seconds after Penny put Neely in the chokehold, the train arrived at the next station and many passengers left the train car, according to court filings.
Footage of the interaction between Penny and Neely, which began about 2 minutes after the incident started, captures Penny holding Neely for about 4 minutes and 57 seconds on a relatively empty train with a couple of passengers nearby.
Prosecutors argue that Penny should have known that his minutes-long chokehold was turning fatal.
Witness accounts of Neely’s behavior that day differ.
In court filings, some passengers described their fear. One passenger said they “have encountered many things, but nothing that put fear into me like that.” Another said Neely was making “half-lunge movements” and coming within a “half a foot of people,” according to court filings.
Other passengers on the train that day said they didn’t feel threatened — one “wasn’t really worried about what was going on” and another called it “like another day typically in New York. That’s what I’m used to seeing. I wasn’t really looking at it if I was going to be threatened or anything to that nature, but it was a little different because, you know, you don’t really hear anybody saying anything like that.”
