By Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
In a landmark medical malpractice case, a New York jury awarded a $2 million verdict in favor of a detransitioner, marking the first successful medical malpractice claim against physicians for providing “gender-affirming” care. The jury found that a psychologist and a surgeon were liable for urging and performing a double mastectomy on a 16-year-old girl.
The verdict concluded that the doctors departed from accepted medical standards of care in multiple respects. Specifically, the jury found that they failed to complete necessary steps in the assessment process, did not adequately evaluate underlying mental health conditions and engaged in negligent communication between the psychologist and the surgeon prior to the surgery.
This case adds significant legal scrutiny to the practice of performing irreversible and body-altering procedures on minors and reinforces the argument that children cannot meaningfully provide informed consent for such interventions. Many observers believe this verdict may open the floodgates to further litigation in the “gender-affirming” care arena, particularly as it relates to medical treatment of minor children.
Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
www.liattorney.com
In a landmark medical malpractice case, a New York jury awarded a $2 million verdict in favor of a detransitioner, marking the first successful medical malpractice claim against physicians for providing “gender-affirming” care. The jury found that a psychologist and a surgeon were liable for urging and performing a double mastectomy on a 16-year-old girl.
The verdict concluded that the doctors departed from accepted medical standards of care in multiple respects. Specifically, the jury found that they failed to complete necessary steps in the assessment process, did not adequately evaluate underlying mental health conditions and engaged in negligent communication between the psychologist and the surgeon prior to the surgery.
This case adds significant legal scrutiny to the practice of performing irreversible and body-altering procedures on minors and reinforces the argument that children cannot meaningfully provide informed consent for such interventions. Many observers believe this verdict may open the floodgates to further litigation in the “gender-affirming” care arena, particularly as it relates to medical treatment of minor children.
Long Island Lawyer
Paul A. Lauto, Esq.
www.liattorney.com
RSS Feed
