Birth injury litigation is using genomic testing at an increased frequency, especially when it is introduced as evidence of neurological impairment. Its use reflects the expanding ability to identify genetic variants that may be associated with developmental and metabolic conditions. In the legal context, genomic testing does not resolve causation. Courts consider whether such evidence […]
Delays in screening—particularly in neonatal and early pediatric care—typically involve more than one provider and more than one point of responsibility. In many cases, hospitals initiate testing, laboratories process results, and pediatricians are expected to receive, interpret, and act upon these findings. When a delay occurs, followed by an injury, courts must determine not only […]
Genetic risk is frequently introduced in medical negligence cases as a competing explanation for injury. Defense theories rely on the presence of an underlying predisposition to argue that the outcome reflects a natural progression rather than a clinical failure. This reframing shifts the focus from what occurred during treatment to what may have been inevitable […]
In cases involving neurological injury, defense theories may invoke genetic causes to challenge causation. When a genetic condition is present, it can complicate the analysis. However, genetics, by itself, does not resolve the question of liability. Courts do not accept attribution to genetic factors without a disciplined, evidence-based showing that the condition explains the injury […]
In brain injury litigation, imaging is often expected and utilized as a means of providing objective confirmation of harm. When conventional studies—like CT or standard MRI—do not reveal clear abnormalities, disputes arise over whether significant impairment can be established in their absence. Courts do not treat normal imaging as dispositive. As such, inquiries focus on […]