A Lee County, Florida jury returned a $2 million verdict for parents who brought a medical malpractice action following the stillbirth of their daughter, alleging that a fetal anatomy ultrasound was misread and that the error altered the trajectory of prenatal care. Court records identify the matter as case No. 23-CA-009865. The plaintiffs contended that the 20-week anatomy scan contained indicators of a significant facial abnormality that were not appropriately reported, delaying a transfer of care that they claimed was required under the applicable standard. The defense denied liability and, according to filings referenced by the plaintiffs, did not extend a settlement offer before or during the week-long trial.
Allegations Centered on the 20-Week Anatomy Ultrasound
The lawsuit focused on the interpretation of a 20-week fetal anatomy ultrasound performed in Lee County and read by Radiology Regional. According to the allegations, the sonographer documented difficulty obtaining views of the baby’s face, including the nose and lips, and noted that key facial structures could not be adequately visualized during the examination. Despite those reported limitations, the radiologist’s final interpretation stated that there were no facial or oral defects and did not identify any facial abnormality requiring follow-up or referral. The plaintiffs framed that divergence between the sonographer’s observations and the radiologist’s conclusion as the core negligence theory.
The parents asserted that a severe cleft deformity existed in utero and should have been detected or, at minimum, triggered additional imaging, consultation, or heightened obstetric involvement. They further argued that radiology reporting carries downstream consequences in prenatal medicine, because ultrasound findings inform risk stratification, referral patterns, and the level of provider oversight. By alleging that the scan was read as normal despite recorded visualization difficulties, the plaintiffs positioned the case as one in which an “all clear” report foreclosed timely escalation, even though the record reflected uncertainty about facial anatomy. The defendant maintained that the interpretation was within the standard of care and contested causation.
Standard of Care and Causation Disputes at Trial
At trial, the plaintiffs advanced a causation theory tied to how prenatal care should change when fetal anomalies are suspected. They contended that if the anatomy scan had identified a severe facial abnormality, the mother’s care would have been transferred from a midwife to an obstetrician consistent with standard-of-care practices, with added monitoring and specialist involvement. The plaintiffs connected that proposed transfer to the management of later pregnancy complications, emphasizing that the mother developed preeclampsia at 38 weeks and delivered the baby stillborn. After delivery, physicians reportedly observed a severe cleft deformity that had not been diagnosed prenatally, which the parents argued corroborated that the abnormality existed at the time of the anatomy scan.
The defense contested both breach and causation and sought to reframe the case around the management decisions of the treating midwife rather than the radiologist’s reading. According to the trial presentation described in the record summary, the defense attempted to attribute responsibility for the mother’s care pathway to the midwife, arguing that any failure to alter monitoring or referral should not be placed on the imaging interpretation. The plaintiffs, represented by Fogg Law Group, maintained that the radiology report was a critical clinical signal that materially influenced subsequent care planning, and that a different report would have changed the course of prenatal management.
Verdict, Damages, and Post-Trial Significance
After a week-long trial, jurors returned a verdict for the plaintiffs in the amount of $2,000,000. The verdict reflected the jury’s acceptance of the parents’ position that the radiology interpretation fell below the standard of care and that the misinterpretation contributed to the circumstances culminating in stillbirth. The case materials indicate the defendant did not present settlement terms prior to trial and did not offer to resolve the dispute during the proceedings, placing the ultimate valuation of the claim in the hands of the jury.
In a statement released after the verdict, managing partner Ryan Fogg said, “This verdict brings justice to a family who suffered a great loss.” While the verdict does not establish binding precedent, it illustrates how juries may assess radiology-related negligence claims where the plaintiff theory links diagnostic reporting to subsequent provider choice, escalation of care, and monitoring decisions in late pregnancy. It also underscores the evidentiary role of contemporaneous ultrasound documentation—such as a sonographer’s recorded inability to visualize critical anatomy—in evaluating whether a final report appropriately conveyed limitations and risk.
