New lawsuits filed in IVF storage tank failure case


A new round of lawsuits has been filed, aimed at hospitals in Ohio and a firm that specializes in temperature monitoring and reporting.


Failure of liquid nitrogen storage tanks at two major infertility centers last year led to a flurry of lawsuits and a review of procedures at those and other similar facilities and by the American Society for Reproductive Medicine (ASRM). Now a new round of lawsuits has been filed, aimed at hospitals in Ohio and a firm that specializes in temperature monitoring and reporting.

Named in the latest lawsuits as defendants are University Hospitals Health Systems, Inc., University Hospitals Cleveland Medical Center, University Hospitals Ahuja Medical Center, and University Hospitals Medical Practice. Also included in the filings is CAS Data Loggers, a company that allegedly was responsible for monitoring the alarm system at UH that failed. Previously, a least three lawsuits-one a federal class action-were filed by women whose eggs or embryos might have been damaged.

The initial incident that sparked the lawsuits occurred on March 4, 2018 at University Hospitals Fertility Center in Cleveland. A statement issued by the Center said that it involved “an unexpected temperature fluctuation with the tissue storage bank where eggs and embryos are stored in liquid nitrogen.” 

A similar incident also occurred on March 4 at Pacific Fertility Clinic in San Francisco. The failure was in storage tank No. 4 and the Clinic is said to have notified 400 patients whose eggs and embryos were stored there. That incident was reported to the College of American Pathologists, which certifies laboratories.

An Ohio coupled filed the first lawsuit after the tank failure in Cleveland. A Pennsylvania couple filed the second lawsuit, also against University Hospitals Fertility Center. In California, a class-action lawsuit was filed by a woman whose eggs were stored at Pacific Fertility Center.

The new lawsuits, filed in federal court and Geauga County, Ohio, allege negligence, gross negligence, and breach of contract. The plaintiffs are asking for jury trials to determine appropriate compensatory and punitive damages.

Related Videos
The significance of the Supreme Court upholding mifepristone access | Image Credit:
One year out: Fezolinetant displays patient satisfaction for managing hot flashes | Image Credit:
Addressing maternal health inequities: Insights from CDC's Wanda Barfield | Image Credit:
Addressing racial and ethnic disparities in brachial plexus birth Injury | Image Credit:
Innovations in prenatal care: Insights from ACOG 2024 | Image Credit:
Unlocking therapeutic strategies for menopausal cognitive decline | Image Credit:
Navigating menopause care: Expert insights from ACOG 2024 | Image Credit:
raanan meyer, md
Related Content
© 2024 MJH Life Sciences

All rights reserved.