If you were burned during a magnetic resonance imaging scan, you can file an MRI burn lawsuit, and most of these cases proceed as medical malpractice claims against the hospital and the technologist who ran the scan. The reason this type of injury is a recurring subject of litigation is simple: a systematic review in the Journal of Medical Radiation Sciences estimated that roughly 97% of MRI-related burns could have been prevented if facilities had followed the American College of Radiology’s safety guidance. Burns are also the most frequently reported MRI adverse event, accounting for about 59% of MRI incidents reported to the FDA between 2008 and 2017.1Wiley Online Library. Systematic Review of Radiofrequency Heating and Burn Injuries Caused by Magnetic Resonance Imaging That combination — common and preventable — is what makes a lawsuit viable in most cases where the facts support one.
What Usually Went Wrong
MRI burns are rarely a mystery once the scan record and positioning are reviewed. The injury almost always traces back to one of a handful of avoidable mistakes:
- ECG electrodes, pulse oximeters, or other monitoring equipment that was not MR-safe left on the patient. Scanning with non-MRI-compatible leads is treated in the radiology field as a “never event.”2MRI-Q. RF Burns
- Skin-to-skin contact (inner thighs, hands against the torso) that formed a conductive loop the technologist should have broken up with insulating pads.3National Center for Biotechnology Information. RF-Induced Heating in MRI
- A patient positioned too close to the bore wall, where strong electric fields near the RF coil can burn exposed skin. Larger patients are particularly vulnerable.3National Center for Biotechnology Information. RF-Induced Heating in MRI
- Metallic objects on the patient that screening missed: transdermal medication patches with metal backing, clothing with metallic fibers, even some tattoo pigments.2MRI-Q. RF Burns
- A defective or recalled coil. In 2024, Philips recalled several models of its Sense XL Torso coils after they were found to heat up during scans, resulting in 12 reported injuries.4MedTech Dive. Philips Recall of Imaging Coils Due to Injuries
One practical point worth knowing before you talk to a lawyer: many MRI burns do not show up right away. The primary injury often occurs in subcutaneous fat, which has no pain receptors, so patients may feel little during the scan itself. Blistering and increased pain frequently appear more than 24 hours later.2MRI-Q. RF Burns That delay matters for the discovery rule discussed further down.
Who You Can Sue
An MRI burn case can name several defendants, and most complaints name more than one.
The hospital or imaging facility is usually the primary defendant. As the employer of the MRI technologist, a hospital is generally responsible for a technologist’s negligent acts under respondeat superior, which holds employers liable for harm caused by employees acting within the scope of their duties.5Radiology Today. Liability of Radiologists and Radiology Technologists
The technologist who ran the scan can be named individually. Courts have held that performing scans and positioning patients for medical imaging qualifies as assisting in medical care and treatment, which exposes the technologist to a malpractice claim.6Buchanan Firm. Can a Radiology Tech Be Held Liable for Medical Malpractice
The supervising radiologist is often added as a codefendant, even when the radiologist is an independent contractor rather than a hospital employee, particularly if the radiologist directed the procedure or set the safety protocols that were allegedly violated.5Radiology Today. Liability of Radiologists and Radiology Technologists
The equipment manufacturer becomes a defendant when a defective coil or scanner component contributed to the burn. Product liability claims against MRI manufacturers are less common than claims against hospitals and staff, but recalls and FDA adverse event filings can supply evidence to support them.
What You Have to Prove
To win an MRI burn case brought as medical malpractice, you have to prove four things: that the provider owed you a duty of care, that the provider breached that duty by failing to meet the accepted standard of care, that the breach caused your injury, and that you suffered actual damages.7MedMalNJ. MRI Malpractice
Duty and damages are usually straightforward in a burn case. The fight is over breach and causation, and that is where the written safety standards do most of the work. The American College of Radiology’s Manual on MR Safe Practices sets the detailed protocols MRI facilities are expected to follow, including patient screening, controlled access zones, and specific burn prevention measures.8American College of Radiology. MR Safety
Among the ACR requirements that come up most often in burn litigation:
- Insulating pads must be placed between the patient’s skin and the RF body coil. A single-layer bed sheet is not sufficient insulation.9ISMRM. ACR Guidance Document on MR Safe Practices
- Technologists must prevent skin-to-skin contact that could form a conductive loop.9ISMRM. ACR Guidance Document on MR Safe Practices
- Facilities should not rely on patients’ own clothing labels, because manufacturing tolerances allow up to 5% impurities that may include conductive materials capable of causing burns.9ISMRM. ACR Guidance Document on MR Safe Practices
- Sedated or anesthetized patients require a “full-stop and final check” in which staff confirm the patient’s identity, verify completion of all safety screenings, and confirm nothing has changed since initial screening.9ISMRM. ACR Guidance Document on MR Safe Practices
The Joint Commission reinforced the same expectations in Sentinel Event Alert #38, which classified serious MRI injuries as sentinel events and called on accredited hospitals to implement rigorous screening, restrict access to the scanner room, and allow only MR-safe or MR-conditional equipment into the suite.10Joint Commission. Sentinel Event Alert Issue 38 – Preventing Accidents and Injuries in the MRI Suite When a complaint can match a specific protocol violation to the burn, breach and causation often follow directly.
A boundary worth noting: not every claim theory applies. California’s Second Appellate District held in Kruthanooch v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center (2022) that failing to remove ECG pads before a scan was the “negligent provision of medical care,” not a “failure to provide medical care,” so it did not support liability under California’s Elder Abuse and Dependent Adult Civil Protection Act. The Act requires a failure to provide fundamental services like hygiene, nutrition, or supervision, not a lapse in technique during a procedure.11vLex. Kruthanooch v. Glendale Adventist Med. Ctr., 83 Cal.App.5th 1109 An elderly plaintiff who was burned during an MRI has a malpractice claim; the elder abuse add-on is harder to make stick.
What These Cases Look Like in Practice
A 2023 Georgia case gives a sense of what a serious MRI burn complaint pleads. Charles Gregory Swinford sued Redmond Park Hospital (doing business as AdventHealth Redmond), Rome Radiology Group, and several individual providers in Floyd County Superior Court, alleging that during a lumbar MRI under general anesthesia his left forearm was positioned too close to the bore wall.12ALM File Handler. Swinford v. Redmond Park Hospital Complaint The resulting proximity burn destroyed skin, muscle, and tissue, exposing the ulna bone.13Daily Report Online. GA Patient Sues Hospital Over Severe Arm Burn From MRI Swinford required months of wound care, a skin graft, intravenous antibiotics for a bone infection, a partial resection of the ulna, and later treatment for a fracture of the ulna shaft. The complaint also alleged the scanner was not set to an appropriate power level given the patient’s positioning.
A Cook County, Illinois case updated as of May 2024 alleges that a patient sustained severe burns to the left side of her body during an MRI at the University of Chicago Medical Center, with the complaint claiming the equipment may have been too small for the patient or that she was improperly positioned. The suit seeks a jury trial and damages exceeding $50,000.14Levin and Perconti. Improper Use of MRI Machine Led to Serious Injuries
The Kruthanooch case is also instructive on strategy. The 72-year-old patient sustained second-degree abdominal burns in 2016 after a technologist failed to remove ECG pads before the scan.15AuntMinnie. Calif Man Sues Over MRI-Related Burn At trial, a jury found the hospital had custody of him and that the technologist failed to use reasonable care, characterizing the conduct as reckless, but awarded no damages.16Radiology Business. Medical Center Cleared in Lawsuit Over Injurious MRI Scan The appellate court later affirmed judgment for the hospital because the plaintiff had dropped the professional negligence cause of action before trial and tried the case solely on elder abuse, which the court held did not fit.11vLex. Kruthanooch v. Glendale Adventist Med. Ctr., 83 Cal.App.5th 1109 Picking the right legal theory matters.
What Your Case Can Be Worth
Compensation in a successful MRI burn case typically covers medical expenses for wound care, skin grafts, surgical procedures, and ongoing treatment; lost wages during recovery; the cost of future medical care; and pain and suffering. Because MRI burns frequently leave visible scars, disfigurement is often a significant component of the claim, and permanent scarring tends to increase settlement value.17FRLaw. MRI Burns
Where you file matters, because many states cap the non-economic portion (pain, suffering, and disfigurement) in medical malpractice cases:
- California: non-economic damages are capped at $430,000 for non-death cases and $600,000 for cases involving a patient’s death, with incremental increases under AB 35, the 2022 reform of the state’s MICRA statute.18American Medical Association. State Laws Chart – Medical Liability Reform
- Texas: $250,000 cap on non-economic damages following a 2003 constitutional amendment.19Stanford Law School. Are Medical Malpractice Damages Caps Constitutional
- Georgia: no cap, after state courts ruled previously enacted caps unconstitutional.18American Medical Association. State Laws Chart – Medical Liability Reform
These caps don’t limit economic damages like medical bills and lost income, but for a severely injured patient whose biggest losses are pain and quality of life, they can meaningfully reduce the total recovery.
Filing Deadlines and Pre-Suit Steps
Every state sets a statute of limitations for medical malpractice claims, and missing it almost always ends the case. Most states give between one and three years from the date of injury or from the date the patient discovered, or reasonably should have discovered, the injury.20Justia. Statutes of Limitations and the Discovery Rule The discovery rule matters here because MRI burns can take more than 24 hours to show themselves, and deeper tissue damage sometimes isn’t diagnosed for months.
California patients have one year from discovery of the injury or three years from the date of injury, whichever comes first, and must give the healthcare provider 90 days’ written notice before filing.21California Courts Self-Help. Statute of Limitations Wisconsin allows three years from the injury date or one year from discovery, whichever is later, with an absolute five-year statute of repose.22Doar Drill. Understanding Statute of Limitations for Wisconsin Personal Injury Claims
Many states also impose pre-filing requirements: submitting the claim to a medical review panel, giving formal written notice, or filing an expert affidavit or certificate of merit from a qualified expert who has reviewed the case and believes negligence occurred.20Justia. Statutes of Limitations and the Discovery Rule These procedural steps sit on top of the statute of limitations and can add months to the timeline before you can actually file, which is why consulting a malpractice attorney soon after the burn is diagnosed is worth doing even if you’re not sure you want to sue.