Facts

Plaintiff Frank Galasso, a self-proclaimed celebrity hairstylist, sought cosmetic surgery (and
functional nose surgery) from Defendant Dr. Haworth, which was done on Jan. 6, 2017. In exchange for publicizing the surgery and post-op results on social media, Dr. Haworth waived his professional fees.

Due to an unusual complication of a hematoma in the nasal tip and non-compliance with smoking
cessation, there was disruption of the blood supply to the columella (the tissue that separates the nostrils and goes from the upper lip to the tip of the nose) and tip of the nose, which started to collapse.

Thus, the patient required revision which he requested urgently due to concerns of losing income and opportunities. The revision was performed on April 18, 2017 and donor rib graft was used. The day after surgery, Dr. Haworth noted black eschar over most of the columella with detachment from the base. Over the next three weeks, the patient was seen by another surgeon as Dr. Haworth was on a prepaid vacation before Plaintiff Galasso and his spouse, celebrity make-up artist Scott Barnes, left town to go to Miami for a job and then New York for the Met Gala. Dr. Haworth kept in close contact with Mr. Galasso via text and video calls. Dr. Haworth was not sure whether the patient would require a short graft from the back of the ear or a longer intraoral mucosal flap procedure since Dr. Haworth would not be able to know until removing the eschar at the time of surgery and determining whether there was a blood supply or not. It was clear the patient did not want a forehead flap, which was the only other option.

On May 3, 2017, the patient returned to see Dr. Haworth, at which time he signed a consent form and was seen by Dr. Haworth for over 45 minutes in the exam room. The patient agreed to proceed as planned, not knowing what Dr. Haworth would encounter. The surgery went forward on May 5, 2017. When Dr. Haworth opened up the area, it was apparent the longer extensive flap procedure was required. This results in Dr. Haworth taking intraoral tissue and advancing the tissue through the top of the lip to the columella to promote vascularization of the columella. This also required Dr. Haworth to do a second procedure several weeks later to divide the flap. Unfortunately, the division was done on May 29, 2017 and failed. The patient ultimately had to have a forehead flap with a third party with an excellent outcome.

Plaintiffs sued Dr. Haworth and his entities for numerous causes of action, but before trial, elected to proceed solely on a claim for medical battery versus medical negligence. Mr. Barnes claimed loss of consortium. They sought punitive damages.

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that Mr. Galasso only consented to the possibility of the graft procedure, not the longer flap procedure. At first, it was alleged Plaintiffs were not in Los Angeles on May 3, 2017 and therefore the consent form and progress note were false and fraudulently prepared. Plaintiff Galasso disputed his signature on the May 3, 2017 consent form and also claimed the surgery center consent form was blank when he signed it on May 5, 2017. When video evidence came out to confirm Mr. Galasso was at Dr. Haworth's office on May 3, 2017, Plaintiffs then claimed the text messages proved he only knew of the shorter graft procedure. Plaintiffs alleged at trial that had they
known of the other option, they would have sought a second opinion from someone qualified to do the flap procedure and would have never permitted Dr. Haworth to do the surgery in question.

Video surveillance evidence showed that Dr. Haworth had produced a progress note for the May 3, 2017 that was not the one he is seen writing on the video. Additionally, video surveillance established that the consent form seen on the video was not the version that was produced as part of the original chart.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: : Defendants have always contended that Dr. Haworth obtained Mr. Galasso's informed consent and discussed the possibilities multiple times as evidenced by the text messages and progress note. Dr. Haworth did not charge Plaintiffs for the surgeries done and took it upon himself to help Mr. Galasso as much as he could due to their friendship and the unexpected and unusual outcome. Dr. Haworth had no reason to do a surgery Mr. Galasso did not want and was always honest with Mr. Galasso. They began discussing the possibility of a flap versus graft weeks before the May 5, 2017 surgery. The evidence showed that Plaintiffs were not surprised nor unhappy with the events on May 5, 2017. In fact, Mr. Galasso was even seen hugging Dr. Haworth and patting him on the back after their post-op visit on May 8, 2017.

Settlement Discussions

Plaintiffs demanded $10 million and there were no counteroffers. Plaintiffs also served a CCP 998 Offer for $1 million, which lapsed.

Damages

Plaintiffs sought general damages beyond MICRA, as well as economic damage and punitive damages. As a result of pre-trial motions, Plaintiffs withdrew claims for economic damages (loss of earnings and medical expenses). Plaintiffs claimed that general damages were not capped by MICRA because Dr. Haworth intentionally performed a substantially different surgery than what was consented to. In their closing argument, they sought more than $6 million plus punitive damages (phase 2). Also, they sought attorneys' fees due to a clause in an arbitration agreement.

Injuries

Plaintiff Galasso ultimately underwent the forehead flap procedure in Arizona and achieved an aesthetic outcome. He was able to return to work and continues to be a celebrity hairstylist. Plaintiff Barnes alleged loss of consortium.

Result

Defense verdict.

Other Information

Plaintiff's were prepared to call a long time employee of Dr. Haworth who would have testified that Dr. Haworth had forged patient signatures on other occasions. The trial court excluded this testimony. Plaintiffs have a pending motion for new trial on this issue (and others).

Deliberation

four hours

Poll

10-2

Length

11 days