Sonultra's Medical-Legal Advisor

Documentation, Audit Trail, and Community Standards are the main reasons for litigation brought against ultrasound practitioners in the last decade. Sonultra products incorporate features that alert physicians to costly inconsistencies that heighten your exposure. We feel understanding your risks is the best mechanism available to protect your investment.

Later this year, Sonultra will announce an ongoing medical-legal advisor. Quarterly, our advisor will review an interesting legal case, how using ULTRA 32 or ImageAdvantage might have addressed this issue, as well as how this issue might affect the way you manage your practice. Additionally, our advisor will bring to light any interesting medical legal trends found in OB/GYN ultrasound.

 

Case Studies

To identify areas of risk to sonographers and physicians, Sonultra Corporation reviewed 10 years of medical legal cases involving OB and GYN ultrasound. We analyzed practitioner's risk exposures, and we designed protocols, alarms, and additional functionality into our program to minimize your risk. Periodically, we will be providing sample cases that identify risks, and how built-in Sonultra systems help protect you.

The two cases below illustrate the importance of Serial Growth Analysis and the correlation of Gestational Age Data with AFI. Sonultra's alert bar and colored reports inform the sonographer and referring physician of any material GA discrepancies. ULTRA 32 would have set off alarms for the sonographer, and informed the referring physician by printing these discrepancies in RED on the ultrasound report.

 

Case #1

Verdict $8,639,000; Failure to Properly Establish Accurate Dating Criteria through the use of Serial Ultrasounds.

Plaintiff, age nineteen, examined at the Teen Obstetrical Clinic of the defendant's hospital where they confirmed she was pregnant and estimated her due date to be January 15th. The defendant provided the plaintiff's prenatal care. In February, the infant plaintiff was born with severe perinatal asphyxia and cerebral palsy. The plaintiff contended that in spite of questionable dating and discrepancies between the size of her uterus and the estimated dates, the defendant's physician failed to conduct serial ultrasound exams to establish accurate dating criteria. Additionally, the plaintiff contends that the physician failed to monitor the pregnancy and allowed the pregnancy to progress past the due date in spite of a non-reactive non-stress tests and other non-reassuring signs of fetal distress. Saint Joseph's Hospital, District of New Jersey, Case # 92-395 (HLS)

Case #2

Verdict $3,909,600; Arbitrarily Changing Due Dates using follow-up ultrasound exams.

An ultrasound in September indicated a due date of January 13th. Two weeks after her due date, another ultrasound indicated a due date of February 21st. The defendant obstetrician then ceased to treat the plaintiff's mother as a potentially high-risk, post-term patient. The plaintiffs contended that the defendant obstetrician improperly relied on an inaccurate second ultrasound and failed to have another stress test performed. When admitted to the hospital for delivery on February 10th, the plaintiff was actually 44 weeks pregnant. Additional claims were made that the hospital staff failed to recognize and treat the plaintiff as a high-risk pregnancy. A Honolulu Hospital and A Honolulu Physician, Hawaii Circuit Court.