Why Patients Need to Understand the IVF Lab
Assisted reproduction has transformed millions of lives. It has given hope where there was none and helped create families across the world. The science is extraordinary, and the dedication of professionals in this field is undeniable.
But recent cases have reminded us of an important truth: Even in the most advanced medical environments, human error can still occur.
Patients often choose fertility clinics based on success rates, but should they also have access to data on errors, such as
❌ Embryo mix-ups
❌ Lost embryos or sperm
❌ Fertilization failures
❌ Cryotank failures
❌ Lab errors
These incidents are rare, but their impact can be devastating.
And hence the question arises: Should public or private IVF clinics be required to report serious errors so that patients can evaluate the risks associated with each clinic and its lab?
This article highlights recent IVF laboratory errors and why awareness is important for patients.
A 30-Year-Old Embryo Error Discovered in Australia
(2025)
The story of Sasha Szafranski is one of the most striking and emotionally complex IVF mix-up cases ever discovered. It highlights both the incredible possibilities of assisted reproduction and the profound consequences when something goes wrong.
In 1995, after years of infertility, Peggy underwent IVF. Two embryos were transferred, and she conceived twins. Later that year, she gave birth to two daughters, Sasha and her twin sister. The pregnancy appeared entirely normal, and the girls were raised in a loving home by their mother.
Nearly 30 years later, Sasha, now an adult and a mother herself, took a DNA test to learn more about her ancestry. What she discovered was unimaginable. Her results showed no biological connection to the woman who had carried and raised her.
At first, she assumed it was an error. But when she connected with a genetic match online, one question changed everything: “Were you conceived through IVF?” The answer uncovered the truth.
A catastrophic IVF mix-up had occurred. Sasha and her twin sister were created from another couple’s embryos. The embryos were transferred on the same day, at the same clinic, as their biological parents’ cycle at Royal North Shore Hospital in Sydney.
To this day, no clear explanation has been given. The clinic has changed ownership, responsibility remains unclear, and no formal acknowledgment or apology has been made.
The human impact of this kind of error is immeasurable. And it raises an important question for our field:
Are we doing enough to prevent, detect, and report these errors?
Defective IVF Fluid May Have Destroyed Viable Embryos
The lawsuits claim that a chemical solution used to grow embryos in the laboratory was deficient in magnesium, a critical nutrient for embryo development, thereby making the environment toxic for developing embryos. The affected product was recalled by the FDA in December 2023, after nearly 1,000 bottles had been distributed to fertility clinics worldwide, potentially impacting thousands of IVF cycles.
More than 30 lawsuits have been filed in U.S. courts, with plaintiffs alleging that viable embryos were lost during treatment due to the defective solution. Some families report losing multiple embryos, significantly affecting their chances of achieving pregnancy after already investing years, emotional energy, and substantial financial resources into IVF.
While production errors can occur and do not necessarily reflect negligence, patients affected by embryo loss should, at the very least, be reimbursed for their financial expenses and receive meaningful recognition of the emotional toll.
Rather than requiring families to wait years for a legal decision, CooperSurgical should consider establishing a compensation fund now to help affected couples move forward and continue their journey toward parenthood.
The litigation is still in its early stages, and courts recently declined to consolidate the cases into a single multidistrict action (class action).
If you have clients or patients who lost embryos around December 2023 and believe the clinic used CooperSurgical’s defective solution, you may be able to take legal action.
Settlement by Clinic over embryo mix-up
Monash IVF, Australia, has agreed to compensate two families affected by embryo mix-ups at its laboratories in Brisbane and Melbourne.
In one case, a woman discovered after giving birth that the child she delivered was not genetically related to her or her partner. The error came to light when the couple learned that their original number of embryos remained in storage, indicating that the wrong embryo had been transferred.
In the second case, the clinic reportedly transferred embryos belonging to the wrong partner, resulting in another serious breach of IVF protocol.
By reaching a settlement, Monash IVF has avoided what would likely have been lengthy and expensive litigation, sparing the affected families from the emotional and financial burden of a prolonged court battle.
The wrong embryos were implanted (2025)
A lawsuit has been filed against Dr. Milton McNichol of the Fertility Center of Orlando after another couple’s embryo was allegedly implanted by mistake.
Tiffany Score and Steven Mills created three viable embryos using their own egg and sperm. However, shortly after the birth of their baby girl, DNA testing revealed that the child was not genetically related to them.
The couple is now focused on locating the child’s biological parents and determining what happened to their three embryos. One of the key questions is whether their embryos may have been mistakenly implanted into another couple.
In a statement, the clinic said it is cooperating fully with an investigation: “We are actively cooperating with an investigation to support one of our patients in determining the source of an error that resulted in the birth of a child who is not genetically related to them.”
The courts have reportedly ordered genetic testing of other potentially affected patients in an effort to identify the baby’s biological parents and determine where the error occurred. A major concern raised in the lawsuit is that one or more of the Score-Mills’s embryos may have been mistakenly implanted into another patient, meaning another family could unknowingly be raising their biological child.
Embryos were “kidnapped” by an IVF doctor.
A group of 26 families has filed a lawsuit against California fertility specialist Dr. Brian David Acacio, alleging that he removed and relocated their embryos without their knowledge or consent. According to the complaint, Acacio closed his fertility clinic in Laguna Niguel in December 2025 after facing eviction for failing to pay approximately $243,000 in rent. The lawsuit claims that he packed up the clinic and transported patients’ embryos by truck to Bakersfield, California, without notifying the families whose reproductive materials were in storage.
At a press conference, attorney Robert H. Marcereau, representing the affected families, stated that the embryos were moved to an unknown location and that the patients were not informed of where they were being stored or whether they were being maintained safely. Marcereau further alleged that Acacio refused to release the embryos unless patients signed documents absolving him of responsibility for his actions, leaving families uncertain about the status and safety of their embryos.
The lawsuit also notes that Acacio’s medical license had been suspended by the Medical Board of California amid allegations that he was abusing cocaine, which allegedly impaired his ability to practice safely.
Plaintiffs claim they were never informed about the suspension or the circumstances surrounding the closure of the clinic and the transfer of their embryos.
This case raises serious concerns about transparency, patient consent, the ethical obligations of staff towards their patients, and the safeguarding of reproductive materials in the fertility industry.
Staff members play a critical role in safeguarding patients by asking questions and speaking up when something appears unusual. In addition, any company responsible for transporting embryos should require clear documentation confirming patient consent before accepting such a transfer.
When DNA proves it is not the IP’s baby
In another case, I recently came across an article about intended parents who traveled to Mexico to pursue surrogacy. They were told they had two male PGT-tested embryos from an egg donor cycle. Their surrogate later gave birth to a baby girl.
DNA testing confirmed the heartbreaking reality: the child was not genetically related to the intended parents and was most likely genetically related to the surrogate. The surrogate most likely had had intercourse prior to the embryo transfer, and this was genetically her baby.
The intended parents love their baby girl, but they are understandably upset and confused.
What role does the IVF clinic play in preventing unintended pregnancies during a transfer cycle? Were the surrogate’s ovaries fully suppressed? Is a pregnancy test performed before transfer? If a male embryo had been transferred, should the clinic have been concerned when the pregnancy appeared to be female and recommended earlier DNA testing?
Cases like this are incredibly rare, but they are a painful reminder that surrogacy, like many areas of medicine and human relationships, carries risks.
Genetic Testing During a Pregnancy
At the same time, as our field continues to evolve, so too should our approach to reassurance and verification.
One option that is not widely discussed, but should be, is Non-Invasive Prenatal Paternity (NIPP) testing.
This test can be performed as early as 7–10 weeks of pregnancy using a simple blood draw from the mother or surrogate.
Small fragments of the baby’s DNA circulating in the bloodstream are isolated and compared to the DNA of the intended father (via cheek swab), and in many cases, the intended mother as well. The result is a highly accurate confirmation, typically over 99.9%, of the baby’s genetic identity.
Importantly, this test is non-invasive and poses no risk to the pregnancy.
While it is not yet standard practice in IVF or surrogacy, NIPP offers an additional layer of reassurance for intended parents, surrogates, and clinics. It is not about questioning the integrity of the process; it is about providing early confirmation, transparency, and peace of mind in a field where the stakes are incredibly high.
It may also serve another important purpose: in the rare event that an error occurs, early DNA confirmation allows the issue to be identified sooner rather than later. This creates the opportunity for open, thoughtful discussions focused on the best interests of the child, rather than discovering the issue months or even years later.
In a surrogacy context, where the surrogate is not genetically related to the child, early clarity can help guide next steps so that the intended parents can assume responsibility for the child while any legal matters are addressed appropriately and in a timely manner.
For those who prefer, DNA confirmation can also be performed immediately after birth. But when available, early testing provides the opportunity to confirm everything is correct. or to respond appropriately, at a much earlier stage.
As awareness grows, this may become an important part of best practices in assisted reproduction.
So what is the answer to preventing these kinds of cases? Are they entirely preventable?
I am not a lab director, nor do I hold a PhD in embryology, or, in fact, a PhD in anything. But as a former IVF patient, I believe there should be a clear pathway for patients to evaluate the laboratories associated with their IVF clinics.
Patients have the right to ask questions and to expect clear, confident answers. By asking these questions, patients can better assess a laboratory’s safety and integrity and make informed decisions about their care. Start by understanding the lab before selecting your clinic, not the other way around.
In my view, risk is most likely to be minimized in a high-tech, well-run laboratory with strong protocols and a culture of accountability.
I would encourage patients to look for clinics that share this type of information on their websites.
Well-run laboratories often take pride in their processes and are open about the safeguards they have in place. If this information is not readily available, you should feel comfortable asking your IVF doctor to explain these procedures.
At a minimum, your IVF clinic should be able to address the following questions about their lab:
In a future blog, I will take a closer look at what happens when a cryotank at an IVF clinic or storage facility malfunctions, and what patients can do to help protect their embryos.
