On March 8, 2014, plaintiff Tyler Cobian was born to plaintiff Luciana Cobian, 35, and her husband, plaintiff Orlando Cobian, 51. Tyler was born with Down syndrome. Prior to his birth, on Sept. 6, 2013, Ms. Cobian began her prenatal care with Dr. James Ngo at The Women’s Clinic, in Lancaster. At the time, she was 10 weeks pregnant and opted to participate in the California Prenatal Screening Program. Ms. Cobian was then seen by Ngo a second time on Oct. 4, 2013, and the results of the California prenatal screening examination became available on Oct. 23, 2013, with the risk of a birth defect(s) being considered within normal limits at 1:230. When initially seen, Ms. Cobian was 34 years of age, but she would be turning 35 before her anticipated due date of April 2, 2014, making her advanced in maternal age. On Nov. 1, 2013, Ms. Cobian was seen by Dr. Barry Berman, an OB-GYN, for the first time. Berman believed that the pregnancy was developing normally and was aware that the prenatal screening came back as negative, meaning that it was quite probable the fetus would be born without a defect. An ultrasound was then ordered and reviewed by Berman. However, the radiologist reported that the ultrasound did not visualize the fetal anatomy well, which was the reason for the ultrasound. Berman then allegedly told the Cobians that the study was normal on Dec. 6, 2013. (At that time, Ms. Cobian was at 23 weeks, 2 days, meaning that there were only five days remaining in which she could have a legal abortion in the state of California.) On Jan. 2, 2014, Ngo saw Ms. Cobian once again, and noted that the radiology report on the ultrasound indicated that the fetal survey was not complete. As a result, Ngo ordered a repeat ultrasound, since the fetus had presumably grown bigger over the previous 30 days, and the ultrasound was carried out by a perinatologist on Jan. 17, 2014. This time, ultrasound documented a cardiac defect in the fetal heart. Additional testing was carried out, which confirmed a Down syndrome fetus. The Cobians went to a late-term abortion physician in Los Angeles, but they did not show for the scheduled abortion to be done at approximately 31 weeks because they allegedly feared that the abortion would be illegal. Ms. Cobian, acting individually and as Tyler’s guardian, and Mr. Cobian, acting individually, sued Berman; Ngo; the radiologist who read the ultrasound, Dr. Rajiv Pai; The Women’s Clinic; and the place that performed the ultrasound, Antelope Valley Healthcare District, doing business as Antelope Valley Hospital (also known as Antelope Valley Outpatient Imaging Center and initially erroneously sued as “Renaissance Imaging Center at Antelope Valley Hospital”). Ngo was let out of the case on after a motion for summary judgment was granted on the issue of causation, as was The Women’s Clinic, a partnership between the two professional entities maintained by Ngo and Berman. Pai was also let out of the case based on a motion for summary judgment, and Antelope Valley Healthcare District was dismissed from the case for a waiver of costs. Thus, the matter continued to trial against Berman only. Plaintiffs’ counsel contended that, at all times, Ngo and Berman were told that the Cobians wanted “all tests possible” because of concerns about birth defects in the family tree and that the Cobians also indicated that they would terminate the pregnancy if there was a question about birth defects. Counsel argued that because Ms. Cobian’s prenatal screen was incomplete until mid-October 2013 and because she had not seen Ngo since Oct. 4, 2013, Berman was obligated to talk with her about diagnostic testing in the nature of an amniocentesis or other diagnostic testing, despite the negative prenatal screening test. Plaintiffs’ counsel argued that because Berman did not do so, the Cobians did not find out that they were carrying a Down syndrome fetus until it was too late to do an abortion. In addition, Ms. Cobian testified that she never heard the word “amniocentesis” until in mid-January 2014, when she saw the perinatologist, who confirmed that the fetus had Down syndrome. Berman denied that having any discussions with the Cobians on Nov.1, 2013 or Dec. 6, 2013, regarding the Cobians wanting “all tests possible” because of concerns about birth defects in the family tree or about the Cobians wanting to terminate the pregnancy if there was a question about birth defects. He testified that difficulty visualizing the fetal anatomy in a second trimester ultrasound is not uncommon because of the position of the fetus, the location of the placenta, and/or several other reasons. Berman claimed that as a result, that it was his practice to simply repeat the ultrasound later in the pregnancy in order to obtain additional information. He also testified that neither he nor Ngo do abortions and that when patients demonstrate interest in termination, those patients are referred to other physicians. In addition, Berman claimed that Ngo had seen Ms. Cobian during the first trimester time frame, in which the prenatal screening and counseling for genetic issues was carried out. As a result, he claimed that as of Nov. 1, 2013, he had no obligation to re-discuss what he believed had already occurred between the patient and Ngo back on Sept. 6, 2013, and/or Oct. 4, 2013. Defense counsel contended that the prenatal screening pamphlet, furnished to Ms. Cobian and signed by her on Sept. 6, 2013, discussed amniocentesis as a diagnostic study, particularly about what it means if the prenatal screening tests were abnormal. Defense counsel also produced additional testimony from Tyler’s grandmother, who stated that early in the pregnancy, she had spoken with her son and daughter-in-law and recalled that amniocentesis had been part of their discussion. A former employee of the Berman’s medical office also testified that when the problems came to light in late-January 2014, she met with the Cobians in the lobby because a disturbance was taking place due to the Cobians returning to see Berman on an unscheduled basis. The former employee also testified that she asked Ms. Cobian why she had not had an amniocentesis earlier in the pregnancy and that Ms. Cobian stated that she did not have definitive testing done because her prenatal screening test had been normal., Tyler was born with severe Down syndrome. He is now 2 years old. According to the plaintiffs’ medical experts, Tyler suffers from superimposed hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy, which resulted in a developmental quotient of approximately 40. They also opined that while seizures had not yet been diagnosed for Tyler, they are a probability such that seizure medication would be necessary for the rest of his life. They further opined that Tyler will require one-to-one care on a 24-hour per day basis for the remainder of Tyler’s life expectancy, which was 57.5 years. The Cobians contended that their right to terminate the pregnancy on an elective basis before 24 weeks was taken away from them, such that general damages should be awarded to them. The plaintiffs’ life care plan contained four scenarios, with a present value high of $32 million and a present value low of approximately $12 million. A non-specific amount of general damages was requested on behalf of Tyler’s parents, as general damages may not be awarded under California law to a child in a wrongful birth/wrongful life case.