A high-stakes medical negligence case centered on the 2022 death of a newborn hours after birth at Nassau’s Princess Margaret Hospital has reignited public controversy after top government legal officials acknowledged they cannot explain why public health leaders initially pledged not to challenge a court ruling against the facility.
Bahamas Attorney General Wayne Munroe, the nation’s top legal officer for government matters, clarified in a press briefing this week that the decision to file an appeal follows a long-standing institutional policy: appeals are only pursued when legal teams conclude a trial judge made material errors of law that require higher court review. “I do not understand what prompted health officials to publicly state they would not move forward with an appeal,” Munroe stated Wednesday. “The fundamental rule that guides our office is straightforward: if a judge misapprehends the law, we appeal to have that error corrected. That standard applies regardless of the nature of the case.”
Munroe’s remarks came just weeks after two separate parties—the Public Hospitals Authority (PHA), which oversees the nation’s public hospital system, and the treating obstetrician Dr. Agatha Foulkes-Mackey—formally filed notices of appeal with the Court of Appeal on September 8. The PHA’s appeal was processed through the Attorney General’s office, as is required for all government entity litigation.
The appeals target a July 28 ruling by Acting Justice Raynard Rigby, KC, that found both the hospital and Foulkes-Mackey liable for the death of newborn Elizabeth Lundy, who died just two and a half hours after her birth on August 2, 2022. The court ruled in favor of the baby’s mother, Widline Guillaume, finding that clinical providers failed to meet the minimum standard of care required for her high-risk delivery.
The facts of the case laid out during the three-day June trial reveal the key point of dispute. Guillaume was waiting for COVID-19 test results before proceeding with an emergency caesarean section, and Justice Rigby found that no clinician monitored Guillaume or her unborn child between 4:10 a.m. and 4:37 a.m.—a 27-minute gap in care that the lower court ruled contributed to the infant’s death. Trial testimony included conflicting expert evidence: one side argued the death stemmed from preventable oxygen deprivation caused by the monitoring gap, while the defense claimed the baby died from an undiagnosed congenital heart defect that could not have been prevented or predicted.
What makes the current appeals so contentious is the explicit public commitment made by health leaders just one day after the ruling was issued. Then-PHA Managing Director Aubynette Rolle told local media outlet The Tribune that the authority had no intention of challenging the ruling, and would not force the grieving family to re-traumatize themselves by reliving the infant’s death through extended litigation. “We do not intend to prolong this case or go against the ruling, including any financial damages awarded,” Rolle stated at the time. Health Minister Dr. Michael Darville also publicly confirmed that no appeal would be pursued, reinforcing Rolle’s commitment to the family.
Munroe pushed back on the idea that the decision to appeal deviates from standard government legal procedure, noting that every claim brought against a public entity undergoes a formal review to decide between settlement and litigation. “Our current policy is clear: if we determine we do not have a valid legal defense, we proactively work to reach a fair settlement with claimants. But if we believe there are material legal errors in the ruling, we move forward with litigation if a settlement cannot be reached,” he explained, adding that the Court of Appeal will ultimately decide whether the trial judge misinterpreted causation and other key legal questions in the case.
In their formal appeal filings, the PHA advances three core arguments against the lower court ruling: first, that Justice Rigby failed to prove the 27-minute monitoring gap directly caused the newborn’s death; second, that the judge incorrectly applied the legal burden of proof to the case; and third, that the ruling relied on evidence that was never formally introduced during the three-day trial. The PHA is asking the appellate court to overturn or modify the original ruling, issue a new judgment in favor of the defense, and order Guillaume to cover the PHA’s legal costs for the appeal.
Foulkes-Mackey’s separate appeal challenges the personal liability finding against her. She argues that the trial judge never identified any specific act or omission on her part that fell below the required standard of care, and that she was incorrectly held responsible for a monitoring failure that the lower court itself attributed to hospital staff and the attending midwife. Foulkes-Mackey is asking the Court of Appeal to throw out the liability finding against her and dismiss the claim entirely, or in the alternative, order a new trial before a different judge.
Justice Rigby’s original ruling awarded Guillaume general and special damages, with the exact amount to be determined at a later hearing, and ordered the defense to cover her legal costs for the trial. To date, no hearing date has been scheduled for the appeals, leaving the grieving family in limbo as they wait for the legal process to conclude.