A Malpractice Case About Words, Not Ultrasound
Why communication determines outcomes in obstetrics
A Georgia jury recently cleared a radiologist of negligence in a case that left a child with severe, lifelong disabilities. The mother had received methotrexate early in pregnancy after clinicians concluded the pregnancy might be ectopic. The radiologist’s ultrasound report, however, had documented an intrauterine pregnancy. The jury deliberated roughly half a day before finding the radiologist was not at fault (1,2).
Legally, the question was whether the radiology report misled the treating team. Clinically, the lesson is different and far more important.
This case was not about imaging skill.
It was about how physicians communicate risk, uncertainty, and management, and how the words in a report can function as a clinical order even when no order was intended.
What Happened
The radiologist performed an early pregnancy ultrasound and identified an intrauterine pregnancy. His report stated this clearly. However, he also noted that the pregnancy’s location within the uterus placed the patient at risk for a potential ectopic pregnancy and described the pregnancy as “high-risk” (1).
That language, combined with a phone call between the radiologist and a hospital clinician, set off a chain of events. The clinician consulted an obstetrician and then ordered methotrexate (1,2).
Methotrexate is standard treatment for ectopic pregnancy. It is harmful to a viable intrauterine pregnancy. The pregnancy was not ectopic. The child was born in 2017 with severe physical disabilities and profound cognitive impairment requiring lifelong care (1).
Other parties, including the hospital clinician, had resolved their claims before trial. The radiologist was the only defendant remaining (1).
The Legal Argument
The plaintiff’s attorney argued the radiologist’s language was confusing and misleading, that it gave the impression the pregnancy was ectopic and the patient’s life was at risk (1). The defense countered that the report explicitly stated the pregnancy was intrauterine and that the radiologist reiterated this finding in a phone call. The defense argued the confusion arose downstream, from others who misinterpreted or miscommunicated the report (1,2).
The jury agreed with the defense. Notably, even the plaintiff’s attorney credited the verdict afterward, stating that the radiologist never claimed the pregnancy was ectopic and was not involved in the decision to administer methotrexate (1).
The evidence continues below. We will discuss and teach you how you could prevent this from happening to you.
Subscribe to ObGyn Intelligence to get the full analysis, references, and actionable recommendations.
