Prenatal genetic screening is designed to assess whether a patient is at increased risk of having a fetus affected by a genetic disorder. In contrast, prenatal genetic diagnostic testing is intended to determine whether a specific genetic disorder or condition is actually present in the fetus. The purpose of prenatal screening for aneuploidy is to provide an assessment of the woman’s risk of carrying a fetus with one of the more common aneuploidies, or number of chromosomes (13, 18, 21, and the sex chromosomes XX and XY). This is in contrast to prenatal diagnostic testing for genetic disorders, in which the fetal chromosomes are evaluated for the presence or absence of abnormalities in chromosome number, deletions, and duplications, or the fetal DNA is evaluated for specific genetic disorders.

In 2007, the American College of Obstetricians & Gynecologists (ACOG) recommended fetal chromosomal screening to all pregnant patients regardless of age. The organization also urged physicians to provide information on detection and false positive rates, limitations of screening testing and diagnostic procedures, and the risks of such testing. Reaffirmed in 2013, ACOG’s recommendation is evidence of an established standard of practice for prenatal care.

The wide variety of screening and diagnostic test options, each offering varying levels of information and accuracy, has resulted in the need for complex counseling by the health care provider and complex decision making by the patient. Each test has relative advantages and disadvantages. It is important that obstetrician-gynecologists and other obstetric care providers be prepared to discuss not only the risk of aneuploidy but also the benefits, risks, and limitations of available screening and diagnostic tests. Testing for aneuploidy should be an informed patient choice, with an underlying foundation of shared decision making that fits the patient’s clinical circumstances, values, interests, and goals.

The number of wrongful abortion, wrongful life and/or birth suits alleging failure to properly diagnose chromosomal abnormalities utilizing conventional biochemical serum testing and diagnostic testing has resulted in staggering verdicts and settlements in recent years.

Noninvasive Prenatal Genetic Screening Test – NIPT

Noninvasive prenatal testing (“NIPT”) is a popular option for high risk pregnancy patients desiring to screen for chromosomal abnormalities. By analyzing fetal DNA circulating within the maternal blood, NIPT does not require an invasive procedure that involves extraction of fetal cells for chromosomal analysis; rather, it involves a simple blood test. NIPT use has become the screening test of choice for fetal aneuploidy.

However, as NIPT is available for all pregnant patients rather than just high risk patients, providers must be cognizant of the limitations of NIPT in that population and effectively communicate them to their patients. NIPT is screening and not diagnostic. Although NIPT has higher sensitivity to detect Trisomy 18 and 21 (three copies of the chromosome 18 or 21) when compared to conventional serum testing, false positives and negatives are still possible.

As a consequence of these limitations, medical professionals should recommend a diagnostic test for any patient with a positive/abnormal/suspected NIPT result. Management decisions, including termination of the pregnancy, should not be based on the results of the cell-free DNA screening alone. The informed consent discussion with the patient should be longer given the addition of NIPT to the prenatal screening regimen. Medical providers must also clarify patients’ misperceptions about the role of NIPT in prenatal diagnosis.

Invasive Prenatal Genetic Testing – Diagnostic Procedures

Chorionic Villus Sampling

Chorionic villus sampling, often referred to as CVS, is a diagnostic test for identifying chromosome abnormalities and other inherited disorders. This test may be recommended by a pregnant woman’s health care provider if her and her partner have family medical histories that reveal potential risks or when a screening test like the NIPT reveals a potential risk.

CVS is a diagnostic procedure which involves removing chorionic villi cells from the placenta at the point where it attaches to the uterine wall. CVS is usually performed between 11 and 13 weeks. The cells collected from the placenta are sent to the laboratory for analysis. Results can take anywhere from a few days to a couple weeks to be returned. CVS detects chromosome abnormalities (i.e. Down syndrome) and genetic disorders (i.e. cystic fibrosis.). This test is different from amniocentesis and has its own limitations in diagnosing aneuploidies present in the fetus (e.g., mosaicism). These limitations should be discussed at length with the patient when making pregnancy management decisions.


Amniocentesis is a diagnostic test that may be recommended by a health care provider following an abnormal triple test result. Inherited or genetic concerns lead some parents to choose amniocentesis to determine if specific genetic disorders may be present in their baby.

Amniocentesis detects chromosome abnormalities, neural tube defects, and genetic disorders. Down syndrome or Trisomy 21 is the most common chromosome abnormality. Genetic disorders include disorders such as cystic fibrosis. The most common neural tube defect is spina bifida.

Amniocentesis is usually performed between 14 and 20 weeks. A sample of amniotic fluid is collected through a needle. The amniotic fluid, which contains cells shed by the fetus, is sent to the laboratory for analysis. Results can take anywhere from a few days to a couple weeks to be returned. Again the limitations of this test, the potential for false positives/negatives and the potential for additional/confirmatory testing should be discussed at length with the patient when making pregnancy management decisions.

Medical Malpractice Claims Arising Out of Negligent Prenatal Genetic Testing

As in most medical malpractice cases, the majority of cases involving prenatal testing assert theories of negligence. The plaintiffs typically allege: that the healthcare professional failed to provide services within the standard of reasonable professional practice in the healthcare provider’s profession or specialty that existed at the time the care in question was rendered; that the healthcare professional failed to act in accordance with such a standard; and, as a proximate result, the injured person suffered injuries that would not otherwise have occurred. The majority of states define professional standard of care with regard to medical malpractice cases as the standard of professional conduct that would be expected from a reasonable physician.

Cases alleging malpractice in the provision of prenatal genetic testing arise in a number of contexts. These typically include allegations that a physician or genetic counselor was negligent in providing genetic counseling by failing to provide accurate information about potential reproductive risk based on age or carrier status, refusing requests to perform invasive procedures or failing to inform the patient about the need or availability of such procedures. Allegations that the physician was negligent in the selection of the laboratory that analyzed the genetic material or failed to interpret the test results correctly are also common. Other cases have been brought against laboratories alleging that carrier testing or invasive testing was negligently performed or the results were misinterpreted. Another fact pattern involving allegations of laboratory negligence or genetic counseling based on misinterpreted laboratory results involves plaintiffs claiming they would not have conceived if a previously born child had been correctly diagnosed with the condition that affected subsequent pregnancies or if they had been properly counseled about the risks of conceiving another affected child. These are commonly referred to as “wrongful birth” or “wrongful life” cases.

An emerging scenario involves allegations of laboratory negligence or genetic counseling based on incomplete or misinterpreted laboratory results where plaintiffs claim they would not have aborted a fetus had they been correctly diagnosed or if they had been properly counseled about the risks of choosing to terminate a pregnancy without further confirmatory test results. These are commonly referred to as “wrongful abortion” cases.

Reach Out to a Lawyer Today

If your child was born with a genetic condition and you were not advised of this possibility or tested for it, or, if you terminated a pregnancy because you were misinformed about test results and were not fully informed of your options for further testing and it turned out your baby would’ve been healthy, you should immediately contact the experienced attorneys at Levy Konigsberg, LLP.



Find out whether you have a case by speaking to one of our experienced lawyers via our 24/7 toll-free hotline or by submitting an email inquiry. Our attorneys will be quick to respond to you and happy to answer all of your questions.


Committed to Doing What’s Right

Over $3 Billion Won

We have represented numerous individuals and groups of workers, winning for them multi-million-dollar settlements and verdicts.

There's No Case Too Big

Our team has achieved groundbreaking victories in highly complex cases and has gone up against some of the toughest defendants in the country.

Trial Attorneys

Our attorneys excel in the courtroom and are not afraid to bring a case in front of a jury if a fair settlement for the client has not been reached.

A Thought Leader in the Industry

Our firm’s knowledge and experience are in high demand, and many news outlets have asked us to share our legal expertise.

Access to World Class Resources

Our experienced attorneys use cutting-edge technology and highly regarded experts to help us achieve the best possible result for our clients.

Changing the World for Good

We not only want to achieve the best possible results for our clients, but we also strive to prevent future harm by changing public health policies.


Hear What They Have to Say

Professional, responsive and very good at their jobs.

“From the first visit to my home, to my last visit to the office to collect my settlement, I was very happy with the services provided by this firm. They are professional, very responsive and very good …”

– Lisa Ross

They have truly gone above and beyond.

“I have been beyond pleased how Levy Konigsberg is handling my matter. They answer my questions in a timely matter and when warranted, ease my worries and concerns. They have truly gone above and …”

– Anne Fahey

I put my Faith and Trust into Corey Stern!

“Selecting a Law firm to represent me was one of the biggest decisions I’ve had to make in my life. I put my Faith and Trust into Corey Stern, and he exceeded all my expectations.”

– Dennis McGowan

With this team on my side we came out on top.

“Levy Konigsberg and team are a group of men and women that give their all, down to the receptionist. I had a case that was almost unbeatable but with this team on my side we came out on top. They keep …”

– Angie Garrido

Very happy with our settlement.

“My husband and I were VERY happy with our experience with this firm. They were always caring and really helped us go through this in a very hard time in our lives .We continue to be in touch with the …”

– Lori Rosa

Wow is all I can say.

“It has been a few years now but I needed to post this. My dad suffered so much from Mesothelioma. My brother looked into the law and our rights. Unfortunately he died also before anything was done. It …”

– Carol N.

Their dedication to receive the highest results for their clients was amazing.

“Working with Levy Koningsberg LLP was a very positive experience. Their professionalism and curiosity was outstanding. I was a pleasure working with this firm. Their dedication to receive the highest …”

– Emily DeRogatis.

Such a great team!

“The whole team at Levy, Konigsberg LLP have been extremely professional and kind during our most difficult time. They keep you informed during the process, check in often asking if there are any …”

– Kevin Kober

We definitely got the right law firm!

“Levy Konigsberg represented my daughter Linda, who was diagnosed with mesothelioma at 16 years old. She endured many surgeries and chemotherapy including HIPEC. She traveled the country seeking …”

– Mark Wells

Levy Konigsberg continued to help my family fight for the justice my father deserves.

“Levy Konigsberg was there for my father as soon as he was diagnosed with mesothelioma they helped him get medical treatment in another state that specializes in his condition and even provided housing …”

– Stephanie Vitale



Free Case Review