Gallo Wins Summary Judgment In Augmentation Case

HPM&B attorney Vincent L. Galloobtained a summary judgment in a penile augmentation case on June 30, 2005 in the Bronx County Supreme Court.

On April 7, 2001 a prominent New York plastic surgeon performed a penile augmentation procedure on plaintiff involving both a lengthening and widening of the patient’s penis. The procedure involved the severing of the suspensory ligament to lengthen and the use of dermal fat grafts from the patient’s thighs to widen the girth of the penis.

Plaintiff alleged that the procedure at issue resulted in his sexual dysfunction and a loss of sensation that necessitated two subsequent reparative procedures. Mr. Gallo moved for summary judgement on behalf of the client by submitting an affidavit executed by the defendant averring that he did not depart from good and accepted practice.

Plaintiff opposed the application by arguing that the penile augmentation procedure had not been shown to be safe or efficacious, and had not been recognized by the American Urological Association. In addition, Plaintiff argued that the postoperative weights to stretch the penis had not been approved by the Food and Drug Adminstration nor did the defendant obtain a proper informed consent.

Following oral argument, the Supreme Court, Bronx County awarded summary judgment on the ground that plaintiff’s expert affirmation was conclusory in nature and offered theories of liability not contained in the pleadings.