Prenuvo Lawsuit: December 2025 Ruling on Damages and Arbitration

The Prenuvo lawsuit is a New York medical malpractice case brought by Sean Clifford, who paid $2,500 for a whole-body MRI from Prenuvo in July 2023, was told his scan was clean, and then suffered a catastrophic stroke eight months later from what the complaint says was a clearly visible arterial narrowing on that very scan. Clifford filed suit in September 2024 against Prenuvo and the radiologist who read the images, and in December 2025 a judge rejected the company’s attempt to shift the case to California law and into arbitration, letting the malpractice claims proceed in New York without a damages cap.

What the Scan Allegedly Missed

Clifford underwent the Prenuvo whole-body MRI on July 15, 2023. Radiologist William A. Weiner interpreted the images and described Clifford’s brain as normal with “no adverse finding.”¹ According to the complaint, the scan actually showed a 60 percent narrowing and irregularity in Clifford’s proximal right middle cerebral artery, a finding the lawsuit calls “life-saving medical information” that went unreported.²

On March 7, 2024, Clifford suffered what the lawsuit describes as a catastrophic ischemic stroke. Imaging that day confirmed the artery identified on the earlier scan had progressed to a complete blockage, and a follow-up CT on March 12 showed a large infarct with hemispheric edema.³ The complaint says that had the narrowing been properly identified, Clifford could have sought minimally invasive treatment such as stenting to prevent the stroke.¹

Clifford’s alleged injuries are severe and permanent: complete paralysis of his left hand and leg, weakness on his entire left side, permanent double vision and visual field loss, speech and cognitive impairment, bladder control issues, chronic headaches, and difficulty with basic activities like dressing and eating. He requires a cane to walk, and the complaint describes lasting anxiety and depression.³

Who Is Being Sued and On What Grounds

Clifford filed the case on September 24, 2024, in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, New York County, represented by Neal Bhushan of the Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm.²⁴ The defendants are Prenuvo, including its California-based professional corporation, and Dr. Weiner, a doctor of osteopathy who read the scan as an independent contractor through Nexray Medical Imaging.⁵

The complaint asserts several causes of action:

Medical malpractice and negligence, alleging Dr. Weiner’s interpretation was incorrect and that he failed to recognize the arterial stenosis.
Lack of informed consent, alleging Clifford was not adequately told about the limitations of the scan.
Negligent hiring and supervision, alleging Prenuvo failed to properly vet and oversee Dr. Weiner.
Breach of contract against Prenuvo’s corporate entity.
Strict product liability, an unusual claim for an imaging service that the court filings do not elaborate on.

Prenuvo has formally denied the allegations in court filings, admitting only that Clifford underwent the scan on the date in question. The company has declined to discuss the specifics publicly, telling The Washington Post in January 2026 that it is “committed to addressing the allegations through the legal process.”¹

The December 2025 Ruling on Damages and Arbitration

The most consequential development so far came on December 19, 2025, when Judge John J. Kelley denied Prenuvo’s attempts to limit its exposure.²

Prenuvo had argued that a choice-of-law clause in its patient agreement required the case to be governed by California law. The stakes were practical. California’s Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act, known as MICRA, caps noneconomic damages in malpractice cases, while New York has no such cap.⁶ Prenuvo also sought to compel arbitration instead of an open-court proceeding.

Judge Kelley rejected both moves. He ruled that the California-law provision applied only to the breach of contract claim against Prenuvo’s corporate entity and could not be stretched to cover the noncontractual claims: malpractice, negligence, lack of informed consent, negligent hiring, and product liability. Those will proceed under New York law with no damages cap.² As to Dr. Weiner, the court noted that “the choice-of-law provision… does not apply to him, since the breach of contract claim was not asserted against him, and all of the causes of action that were asserted against him were noncontractual.”⁵

Bhushan called the decision a vindication: “This ruling reaffirms the strength and merits of our medical malpractice and negligence claims, and we look forward to continuing to litigate this matter in New York County Supreme Court.”²

The Radiologist’s Separate Legal Record

Dr. Weiner brings his own legal history to the case, and it feeds directly into Clifford’s negligent hiring claim against Prenuvo. In a federal criminal case in the Southern District of New York, Weiner pleaded guilty on January 16, 2024, to conspiracy to commit healthcare fraud and tax fraud.⁷

The government had originally alleged that Weiner participated in a $70 million no-fault insurance fraud scheme by effectively selling his medical license to a non-physician, Bradley Pierre, who then secretly owned and controlled Weiner’s radiology practice while billing insurers as though it met New York’s legal requirements. Many of the most serious allegations were later dropped or narrowed, and the sentencing judge noted that “the most serious allegations have melted away.” Weiner was sentenced on September 19, 2024, to time served and two years of supervised release.⁷

The New York State Department of Health then sustained charges of professional misconduct based on the felony conviction. As of September 30, 2025, Weiner’s medical license is under a two-year suspension, stayed on the condition that he comply with the order. He is permanently restricted to practicing only as an employee in a supervised, state-licensed facility, barred from holding any equity position in a medical practice, and was fined $10,000.⁸

Timing matters for the negligent hiring theory. The federal criminal case against Weiner had been filed in 2022. Prenuvo’s scan was performed in July 2023. Weiner’s guilty plea came in January 2024.

Where the Case Stands

As of May 2026, the case remains open in New York County Supreme Court and appears to be in discovery. No trial date, settlement, or additional substantive motions have been publicly reported.⁹

What the Case Signals for the Whole-Body MRI Industry

The lawsuit has drawn attention well beyond Clifford’s individual injuries because it tests how accountability works in a fast-growing industry. Prenuvo is the most prominent name in direct-to-consumer whole-body MRI, with competitors including SimonMed Imaging and Ezra. The December 2025 ruling has been described as having “implications for this burgeoning business model.”²

The core legal takeaway is that even when whole-body MRI exams are marketed as “wellness” or “screening” rather than traditional medical care, the interpretation of those scans is held to conventional medical standards. A terms-of-service clause cannot be used to route malpractice claims into a more favorable jurisdiction or force them into arbitration when the underlying conduct is medical.⁶

The case also inverts the usual criticism of whole-body screening. The American College of Radiology has said there is “no documented evidence that total body screening is cost-efficient or effective in prolonging life,”¹⁰ and the usual worry is false positives that trigger unneeded testing. Clifford’s complaint alleges the opposite problem: a false negative, a genuinely dangerous finding present on the scan that went unreported and gave the patient false reassurance.

1
Ars Technica. Man Got $2,500 Whole-Body MRI That Found No Problems, Then Had Massive Stroke
2
Radiology Business. Whole-Body MRI Provider Prenuvo Loses Bid to Limit Damages in High-Profile Malpractice Case
3
Medical Malpractice Lawyers. New York Medical Malpractice Lawsuit Filed Against Radiologist MRI Full Body Scan Company Alleged Missed Findings
4
Jacob D. Fuchsberg Law Firm. Neal Bhushan
5
NY Courts. Clifford v Weiner, Index No. 805267/2024
6
Applied Radiology. Prenuvo Malpractice Case to Proceed Without Damage Cap Per Court Ruling
7
CaseMine. United States v. Weiner, 22 Cr. 19 (PGG)
8
New York State Department of Health. Physician Professional Misconduct and Discipline – William A. Weiner
9
Unicourt. Sean Clifford et al v. William A. Weiner M.D. et al
10
Fortune. Prenuvo Full Body MRI Scan Benefits and Drawbacks