IVF Lawsuit Alleges Defective PGT-A Testing Machine Led to Loss of Embryo

Lawsuit claims a PGT-A testing machine malfunction forced a couple’s highest-graded embryo to undergo a second thaw, causing it to be permanently lost.

A Texas couple has filed a lawsuit alleging genetic testing companies used a defective machine to perform preimplantation genetic testing for aneuploidy (PGT-A), ultimately resulting in the loss of their two embryos.

The complaint (PDF) was brought by Paul Myles and Rosa Myles in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on August 14, naming Genomic Prediction Inc. and NextGen Genetics, doing business as Luminary Genetics, as the defendants.

The Myleses claim the allegedly defective testing machine produced inconclusive results for both embryos, requiring them to be thawed and biopsied again. Their highest graded embryo did not survive the second thaw, while testing later showed the remaining embryo had an abnormal number of chromosomes, leaving the couple with no viable embryos.

PGT-A Testing Concerns

IVF is a widely used fertility treatment in which eggs are fertilized outside the body, with selected embryos later transferred to the uterus.

PGT-A is an optional genetic screening procedure offered as part of many IVF treatments. Once embryos develop to the blastocyst stage, several cells are biopsied and analyzed in a laboratory for chromosomal abnormalities, with the results used to help determine which embryos may be appropriate for transfer.

Previous PGT-A genetic testing lawsuits have alleged that companies market their testing as nearly 100% accurate and claim it can improve implantation rates and IVF outcomes, reduce the risk of miscarriage and help patients become pregnant sooner. However, plaintiffs maintain those claims overstate the reliability and benefits of the testing while failing to disclose important limitations, potentially causing patients to discard viable embryos and incur substantial financial and emotional harm.

Defective PGT-A Test Allegations

According to the complaint, the Myleses purchased donor eggs and underwent IVF treatment at Texas Fertility Center in Austin, Texas. Six eggs were fertilized through intracytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI), ultimately producing two blastocyst-stage embryos.

Texas Fertility Center biopsied both embryos before they were cryopreserved. On June 20, 2025, the biopsy samples were sent to the defendants for PGT-A testing, for which the couple paid Luminary $1,200.

However, on July 7, the Myleses were informed that testing produced inconclusive results for both embryos. The lawsuit indicates the companies initially provided no explanation for the results or disclosed that they allegedly resulted from an equipment malfunction.

Concerned about the lack of information, the couple contacted Genomic Prediction for an explanation and participated in a virtual call on July 9 with Jennifer Eccles, the company’s senior director and head of clinical genetics.

During that call, Eccles allegedly acknowledged that the inconclusive results were caused by a malfunctioning testing machine. Plaintiffs claim she offered to have the embryos retested at no additional charge because the malfunction was the defendants’ fault.

However, the Myleses were informed the following day that retesting would require new biopsy samples, meaning both embryos would have to be thawed again.

Between July 10 and July 15, both embryos were thawed at Ovation Fertility Austin for a second biopsy. The couple’s highest-graded embryo did not survive and was permanently lost.

The remaining embryo survived the procedure and was re-biopsied. However, on August 6, the couple was informed that it was aneuploid, meaning it had an abnormal number of chromosomes and was not considered viable for implantation.

“As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ use of a malfunctioning Testing Machine, Plaintiffs’ highest-graded embryo was needlessly thawed and destroyed, and Plaintiffs were left with no viable embryos from their entire IVF cycle.”

— Paul Myles et al. v. Genomic Prediction Inc. et al.

The Myleses maintain their highest-graded embryo would not have needed to be thawed a second time if the original PGT-A testing had been performed with properly functioning equipment.

The complaint also alleges the informed consent documents provided before testing did not adequately warn the couple that equipment could malfunction, produce inconclusive results and require embryos to undergo another thaw and biopsy.

The lawsuit maintains Genomic Prediction and Luminary should have provided warnings about those risks before the couple submitted their biopsy samples and before they authorized the additional procedures. The Myleses claim adequate warnings could have led them to seek a second opinion, additional assurances or other safeguards before agreeing to have their only two viable embryos thawed again.

The lawsuit raises allegations of negligence, gross negligence, strict product liability based on alleged design and manufacturing defects, failure to warn, breach of express and implied contract and unjust enrichment. It seeks compensatory and punitive damages, restitution, attorneys’ fees and other relief.

Sign up for more legal news that could affect you or your family.