On Nov. 10, 2008, plaintiff Kenneth Weitzman, 72, a retired dentist, underwent a wide re-excision surgery to address a basal cell carcinoma that had recurred on the bridge of his nose. Weitzman had initially been diagnosed with a basal cell carcinoma on the bridge of his nose in 2005. He had it excised, but it recurred and was re-diagnosed in August 2008. As a result, he had seen a dermatologist and was scheduling a Mohs procedure, in which thin layers of cancer-containing skin are progressively removed and examined until only cancer-free tissue remains. However, in September 2008, Weitzman was approached by a neighbor, Dr. Ronald Gemberling, a plastic surgeon, who allegedly made various representations discrediting Mohs procedures and touted the superiority of a surgical excision. As a result, Weitzman had the wide re-excision surgery on Nov. 10, 2008. However, Weitzman claimed that following the procedure, he was left with a visible defect. Weitzman sued Gemberling and Gemberling’s office, Ronald M. Gemberling, M.D., Inc. Weitzman alleged that Gemberling failed to properly perform the procedure and failed to obtain his informed consent. He also alleged that these failures constituted medical malpractice and that the medical office was liable for Gemberling’s actions. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Gemberling removed an excessive amount of tissue — much more than the Mohs technique would require — necessitating a skin graft. Counsel argued that while Gemberling noted that Weitzman would need reconstruction of the defect and skin grafting, Gemberling assured Weitzman that the skin graft would match and not be visible. However, plaintiff’s counsel contented that the excessive amount of tissue removed caused a visible defect and a significant mismatch of the skin graft. Counsel further contended that Gemberling knew that the skin graft was going to be a mismatch, but never told Weitzman beforehand, and thus, did not obtain proper informed consent. Therefore, plaintiff’s counsel argued that Gemberling intentionally misrepresented the re-excision surgery, negligently performed the surgical technique, and failed to obtain Weitzman’s informed consent. Defense counsel denied there were any misrepresentations, and argued that the size of the defect was due to the size and shape of the tumor mass. Counsel also argued that the surgical technique was appropriate and that skin grafting was necessary, regardless of whether a Mohs procedure or surgical excision was utilized. In addition, defense counsel contended that the tumor excision was successful and that there has been no recurrence., Weitzman claimed a poor cosmetic result that left him with a significant skin mismatch and a visible defect across the bridge of his nose. Gemberling denied making any representation that he anticipated a good cosmetic result from Weitzman’s surgery. He also contented that Weitzman’s nose and face were discolored from chronic sun exposure and that, as such, there was no similar tissue appropriate for a good cosmetic result.