Peters & Monyak's Robert Monyak delivers his closing argument. Watch the trial.
Decatur, GA— Jurors earlier this month cleared a radiologist of responsibility for a child’s severe, birth-related disabilities. Leonard v. Diagnostic Imaging Specialists, P.A., et al.
The DeKalb County (Georgia) State Court jury deliberated roughly half-a-day before concluding Dr. Darren Cutter was not negligent in preparing his 2016 report on an ultrasound early in a Georgia woman’s pregnancy. Shortly after that ultrasound report, a hospital clinician ordered methotrexate be given to the woman. That drug is typically given for ectopic pregnancies, or nonviable pregnancies where the fetus is developing outside the womb, and its use has been linked to severe birth defects in standard pregnancies within the womb.
The woman’s pregnancy was not ectopic, and the child was ultimately born in 2017 with a wide range of physical disabilities, as well as profound cognitive impairment that the family’s attorneys say will require him to receive ongoing care for the rest of his life.
Although claims had initially been raised against the hospital clinician and others, those parties resolved their claims, leaving Cutter the only defendant at trial.
The liability phase of the four-day trial focused on the clarity of Cutter’s report. Cutter had noted in his report that the pregnancy was intrauterine, or with the fetus developing inside the womb, at the time of the ultrasound. However, he added that, because of the fetus’ location within the womb, there was a risk the pregnancy could become ectopic, and that the pregnancy should be considered “high-risk.”
In his closing argument on liability, the child’s family’s attorney, Nick Rowley, of Trial Lawyers for Justice, reminded jurors of evidence that he said showed Cutter used confusing language in his report, leading the clinician to ultimately order the methotrexate. Rowley told jurors that the report used terms that gave the impression that the situation was graver than it was.
Rowley said that the report and a call between Cutter and the clinician set in course a chain of events that led the clinician to order methotrexate after consulting with an obstetrician.
“What he wrote could lead a person to believe that this [pregnancy] was ectopic, that the patient’s life was at risk,” Rowley said. “This was confusing. It was misleading.”
But Cutter’s attorney, Peters & Monyak’s Robert Monyak, pushed back on those contentions. In his closing, Monyak pointed to evidence that the radiologist had explicitly stated in his report that the pregnancy was intrauterine. Monyak added that Cutter followed up to reiterate that ultimate conclusion in a phone call to the clinician.
Monyak said the evidence showed that the confusion was the fault of others misinterpreting or miscommunicating Cutter’s report, rather than any fault in Cutter’s report or communication itself.
“If for some reason, somehow, some way after he was done with his job, the diagnosis of intrauterine pregnancy got turned upside down by somebody somehow and became ectopic,” Monyak said, “that can’t be put on him.”
In a statement to CVN after the verdict, Rowley credited the jury and its decision. “Dr. Cutter did write a confusing report but he never said this was clearly an ectopic pregnancy in the fallopian tube, and Dr. Cutter was not involved with the decision to give methotrexate,” Rowley wrote. “Brutal honesty, hindsight 20/20, I believe that the jury did their job [and] came back with the right decision.”
Rowley noted the difficulty of trying the case, given the fact that the other parties had resolved the plaintiffs’ claims against them, but he added that the case itself was illuminating. “I don’t shy away from difficult cases. This was a difficult case with three empty chairs who we all agreed were negligent,” Rowley wrote. “This was my 192nd jury trial and the 19th defense verdict of my career. I learn more from my losses than I do from the wins.”
Rowley also credited opposing counsel for how smoothly the trial proceeded in general. “Trying the case was a great experience in front of a wonderful judge with great staff against a very professional, kind, and excellent trial lawyer. We tried the case without a single objection,” Rowley wrote.
“I wish all cases could be tried so kindly and professionally.”
CVN has reached out to defense counsel and will update this article with any comments.
Email Arlin Crisco at acrisco@cvn.com.
Related information
Not a subscriber?
Learn how you can access an unrivaled trial video library.