This AJR viewpoint examines four medicolegal cases involving obstetric ultrasound reports. In each, the question of liability did not rest on whether the radiologist made the right diagnosis. It rested on whether the report communicated the findings clearly, disclosed the limitations of the study, and gave the referring clinician a path to act on.
The lessons apply well beyond obstetrics. A technically limited scan reported as normal, a finding buried in the body of a report, or a recommendation that leaves the next step unclear can each become the centre of a claim even when the images were read correctly.
In Indian practice, where obstetric ultrasound reporting is high-volume and also regulated under the PCPNDT Act, structured reports with explicit limitation statements protect both the patient and the reporting doctor.
- State the limitations of a technically limited scan explicitly — habitus, fetal position, gestation.
- Put any finding that needs action in the impression, not only in the body of the report.
- Give a specific next step: repeat scan with timing, specialist referral, or further imaging.
- Document direct communication of urgent or unexpected findings, with time and recipient.
Why it matters
A correct read can still fail the patient — and the radiologist — if the report does not say what to do next.
Don't overread it
A viewpoint drawn from four US cases, not a systematic analysis of claims.
Read the rest in the app
You have read your two free briefings this month. The app carries all 27 specialties, every morning, free — and this finding is waiting in it.
Scan to keep reading on your phone. No account needed to start.
Tomorrow morning, before your first patient
One edition a day for radiology, written by the desk, every claim tied to its paper. Six minutes.
Get the app — free