HOUSTON – An appellate court recently affirmed a ruling denying a motion to dismiss brought by a physician accused of removing too much foreskin.
In 2019, Oscar and Velma Ayala filed a healthcare liability lawsuit against Dr. Omar Durrani.
Court records show Durrani treated Oscar Ayala for phimosis (tight foreskin) and recommended he undergo a circumcision, which Durrani performed in June 2017.
Soon after the surgery, Oscar complained of pain and told Durrani that the thought he removed too much foreskin.
Oscar continued to complain of pain and in follow up communications told Durrani that his penis looked abnormal and could no longer become fully erect.
A second circumcision was performed in August 2017. Oscar once again complained of pain and told Durrani that the surgery left him “with no ‘shaft’ to his penis.”
Oscar told Durrani that only the head of his penis was visible, and he could no longer obtain an erection because “there was nothing to erect.”
At a follow-up appointment, Durrani advised Oscar he would require a skin graft to rebuild the shaft of his penis due to removal of too much foreskin.
Oscar and his wife sued, serving, as required by law, a medical expert report.
Court records show Durrani objected, calling the report deficient. The trial overruled the objection and denied Durrani’s motion to dismiss.
On Jan. 12, the 14th Court of Appeals found the expert report sufficient, affirming the trial court’s ruling.
Justices concluded the report provides a sufficient summary of the applicable standard of care to avoid removing more foreskin than is necessary.
The Ayalas are represented by The Peters Law Firm in Houston.
Durrani is represented by Kershaw Anderson in Dallas.
Appeals case No. 14-19-00950-CV