Keith Bruno
Medical Malpractice, Medical Fraud, Penis injury $412,000,000 Verdict
January 6, 2025 6:30 PM||
In Sanchez v NuMale a jury returned a record $412 million verdict, including $375 million in punitive damages against the Las Vegas-based defendant, who was found 100 percent at fault in a botched penile injection procedure.
The plaintiff, then a 66-year-old widower, visited NuMale Medical Center in Albuquerque in 2017 for fatigue and weight management. The clinic instead diagnosed him with erectile dysfunction (ED) in order to sell him invasive penile injections for “rehabilitation” to cure his ED.Though the plaintiff disclosed multiple medical conditions that would disqualify him from the ED treatment, and repeatedly told them he was widowed and not sexually active, the NuMale staff did not adjust their treatment to meet his lifestyle or goals. Instead, the physician's assistant (PA) injected his penis with the chemical, diagnosed him with ED, and told him that doing nothing would cause irreversible harm only their medicine could cure.Subsequently, they prescribed him the penile injection for home administration, which he could not do.ON November 17, 2017, Mr. Sanchez went back to the clinic to discuss his inability to inject.The PA, Mr. Chapman then injected his penis causing an erection, advised him to go home and show his friends, and did not warn him of the dangers of a prolonged erection (Priapism).Mr. Sanchez’s penis was in priapism for the next three days, when he returned to NuMale and was sent to the ER for surgery.The surgery was unsuccessful, and he lost the use of his penis.After 2 weeks of trial, he was able to obtain justice from an Albuquerque jury.
The case dealt with the following issues:
- Presenting a challenging client.Mr. Sanchez was 70 years old, widowed, sexually inactive for years, and a lawyer.Significant preparation and strategy had to be employed to present him in a sympathetic light to the jury.
- What type of case was this?Was it a medical malpractice case or a fraud case?Issues related to strategy and why it was important to shift the focus from the plaintiff to Numale’s business practices and away from the actual care received.
- Trying a case on the high ground.Employing ethics and civility in the face of unethical defense behavior.The defense was sanctioned in front of the jury three times, the court inviting us to draft and deliver three separate instructions calling out the defense conduct.Following that—the defense sought a mistrial due to their own “conflict of interest.”This was denied.
- Getting punitive damages for questionable conduct. How “concierge medicine” is an open range for many of these claims. The critical focus is on the management and execution of the business model, particularly in underserved regions.
If you can't attend Live, Watch On Demand