A 2,818-g, 395/7 weeks’ gestation, female infant was born to a 27-year-old, gravida 1, para 0 mother with a history of pregnancy-induced hypertension and oligohydramnios. Labor was augmented by oxytocin because of the hypertension. The nurses notified the obstetrician about several variable decelerations during the first stage of labor and later about the development of minimal variability of the fetal heart rate (FHR), but he ordered the continuation of oxytocin. At 7-cm dilation, spontaneous rupture of the membranes occurred and labor progressed, with cervical dilation to 9 cm within 30 minutes. During the next 20 minutes, several variable decelerations followed, and the use of oxytocin was discontinued. However, more and deeper variable decelerations occurred, with one prolonged for several minutes. The fetus was being externally monitored, and the tracings were difficult to interpret and at some points totally unreadable. The defending and defense obstetricians pointed out in their depositions that accelerations were present, and therefore it was a reassuring tracing. The plaintiff obstetric expert thought the tracings were not of sufficient quality to be interpreted accurately and that cesarean delivery should have been performed because intolerance of labor during the first stage could predict difficulties during the second stage. At 9-cm dilation, the obstetrician ruptured the forebag and thick meconium was released; therefore, he decided to perform an amnioinfusion. As soon as the catheter was introduced, fetal bradycardia began. The obstetrician proceeded with the amnioinfusion and placed a scalp electrode on the fetus during the bradycardia. The plaintiff obstetrician contended that amnioinfusion was inappropriate, especially because the fetus was entering the second stage of labor, should not to be used during bradycardia, and, most importantly, delayed the delivery. He thought some of the decelerations were a combination of late and variable decelerations before the terminal bradycardia. The …