Patient had prior surgery for bladder cancer.

The Case

• Case Name: L.V. v. Dr. Edward Karpman, et al.
• Court and Case Number: Santa Clara County Superior Court / 23CV425919
• Date of Verdict or Judgment: Thursday, January 22, 2026
• Type of Case: Medical Malpractice
• Judge or Arbitrator(s): Hon. Julia Alloggiamento
• Plaintiffs:
  L.V., 76 years old, small business owner and operator
• Defendants:
  Edward Karpman, M.D.
• Type of Result: Jury Verdict

The Result

• Gross Verdict or Award: $7,550,000
• Net Verdict or Award: $520,000 after MICRA reduction.
• Award as to each Defendant: As to Dr. Karpman, no money was awarded on the medical battery – conditional consent cause of action.
• Economic Damages: $50,000
• Non-Economic Damages: $7,500,000
• Trial or Arbitration Time: 8 days
• Jury Deliberation Time: 2 days
• Jury Polls: 9-3

The Attorneys

• Attorney for the Plaintiff:

  Haberkorn and Associates by Matthew H. Haberkorn, Greenbrae.

• Attorney for the Defendant:

  Hinshaw Marsh Still and Kanter LLP by Bradford J. Hinshaw and Aimal R. Naqvi, Saratoga.

The Experts

• Plaintiff’s Medical Expert(s):

  Andrew G. Rosenberg, M.D., urology.

• Defendant's Medical Expert(s):
• Steven Wilson, MD, FACS, FRCS, urology.

Facts and Background

• Facts and Background: Plaintiff underwent a radical cystoprostatectomy in approximately 2015 as treatment for bladder cancer, resulting in removal of his bladder, prostate, urethra, and pelvic lymph nodes and leaving his pelvic anatomy materially altered. Years later, he sought treatment from defendant urologist Dr. Edward Karpman for erectile dysfunction. Dr. Karpman documented that because of plaintiff’s prior pelvic surgery, any penile implant procedure would require off-label ectopic reservoir placement and would carry risks unique to post-cystectomy patients, including bowel injury.On post-operative day 14, imaging confirmed that the reservoir of the prosthesis had perforated the sigmoid colon. Plaintiff underwent emergency surgery to remove the device, partial sigmoid colectomy, and a Hartmann’s procedure with diverting end colostomy.
• On March 9, 2023, plaintiff signed a written consent authorizing insertion of a “multi-component inflatable penile prosthesis.” Surgery was performed on March 14, 2023. During the operation, Dr. Karpman documented significant fibrosis, difficulty with proximal dilation, and anatomical challenges attributable to plaintiff’s prior pelvic surgery.
• Plaintiff's Contentions: That defendant committed both an intentional tort (medical battery based on conditional consent) and medical negligence in connection with the March 14, 2023 penile implant surgery.
• That plaintiff consented to implantation of a multi-component inflatable penile prosthesis only on the condition that no viable alternative prosthetic options existed given his prior radical cystoprostatectomy and altered pelvic anatomy. That defendant knew of alternative prosthetic options for patients with prior pelvic surgery – including in defendant’s own peer-reviewed publication – but failed to disclose or meaningfully discuss those alternatives. That because the condition precedent to consent was not satisfied, defendant exceeded the scope of plaintiff’s authorization when he implanted the device. That consent defines the physician’s authority to act, and proceeding outside that conditional authorization constituted medical battery, independent of negligence.
• Defendant's Contentions: Defendant denied liability and contended that neither medical battery nor negligence occurred. That plaintiff executed a written consent authorizing insertion of a multi-component inflatable penile prosthesis. That there was no legally operative “condition precedent” to consent, and plaintiff did not limit authorization in the manner claimed. That any alleged failure to discuss alternative devices, even if proven, would sound in negligence (informed consent), not intentional battery. That the surgery performed was the procedure plaintiff authorized, and therefore no misconduct occurred.

Injuries and Other Damages

• Physical Injuries claimed by Plaintiff: Iatrogenic sigmoid colon perforation by the penile prosthesis reservoir; emergency explantation of the multi-component inflatable penile prosthesis; partial sigmoid colectomy with Hartmann’s procedure and diverting end colostomy; permanent ostomy; loss of remaining erectile function and loss of any future prosthetic option.

Demands and Offers

• Plaintiff §998 Demand: $1,000,000
• Plaintiff Final Demand before Trial: $4,250,000
• Plaintiff Demand during Trial: $198,000,000
• Defendant §998 Offer: Waiver of costs
• Defendant Final Offer before Trial: $29,999.99