Plaintiff sues over infection after rhinoplasty. Defense verdict. Los Angeles County.


Patient has rhinoplasty by Beverly Hills plastic surgeon, says he was not advised of the risks.

The Case

  • Case Name: Mohammed Shaikh v. Marc Mani, M.D.
  • Court and Case Number: Los Angeles Superior Court / BC641404
  • Date of Verdict or Judgment: Tuesday, March 08, 2022
  • Date Action was Filed: Tuesday, November 22, 2016
  • Type of Case: Medical Malpractice
  • Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Chester Horn
  • Plaintiffs:
    Sheikh Mohammed Haal Hamez
  • Defendants:
    Marc Mani, M.D.
  • Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

  • Gross Verdict or Award: Defense verdict
  • Award as to each Defendant:

    The jury found that Dr. Mani did not breach the standard of care, obtained Shaikh Haal Hamez's informed consent, and did not intentionally misrepresent any material fact to him.

  • Trial or Arbitration Time: 6 days
  • Jury Deliberation Time: 40 minutes
  • Jury Polls: 11-0 (an alternate and a juror were dismissed during trial)

The Attorneys

  • Attorney for the Plaintiff:

    Law Office of Loyst P. Fletcher by Loyst Fletcher, Los Angeles.

  • Attorney for the Defendant:

    Carroll Kelly Trotter & Franzen by Richard D. Carroll and Daniel Z. Weinberg, Long Beach.

The Experts

  • Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):

    Stephen Grifka, M.D., ENT, Santa Monica.

    Brian Payne, M.D., emergency medicine, Downey.

  • Defendant's Medical Expert(s):

    Terry Dubrow, M.D., plastic surgery, Newport Beach.

Facts and Background

  • Facts and Background:

    On March 30, 2016, plaintiff presented to defendant doctor, a Beverly Hills plastic surgeon, for a complex revision closed rhinoplasty. A day after the nasal packing was removed, plaintiff presented to Cedars-Sinai Medical Center, where a 2x2 gauze was found in his nasopharynx, and it was self-extracted.

    Thereafter, plaintiff developed an infection to the tip of the nose and deviation of the nasal tip. On April 22, 2016, plaintiff underwent a surgery to clear the possible infection and straighten the cartilage graft located at the tip of the nose.

  • Plaintiff's Contentions:

    That the risks of the surgery, including infection, dissatisfaction, and need for subsequent surgery, were not discussed with him preoperatively, and if they had been discussed, he would not have undergone the surgery. Also, that defendant doctor guaranteed that the surgery would successfully achieve plaintiff's aesthetic and functional goals.

  • Defendant's Contentions:

    That the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the surgery were discussed preoperatively. Plaintiff, who had undergone about six previous rhinoplasties, was well aware of the risks of rhinoplasty. No guarantees were made, and plaintiff signed several consent forms for the procedure.

Injuries and Other Damages

  • Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff:

    Dissatisfied with his appearance, emotional distress, inability to breathe, deviation of the nasal tip, and airway obstruction.

Demands and Offers

  • Plaintiff §998 Demand: $250,000