On March 24, 2011, plaintiff Haim Ahrony, 68, underwent an open radical prostatectomy — a surgical procedure to remove all of the prostate gland and some of the tissue around it — due to his previously diagnosed prostate cancer. However, during the surgery, which was performed by Dr. Richard Leff, a urologist, a surgical stapler misfired, causing a one-inch rectal tear and resulting in a bloody plane. As a result, Ahrony necessitated a blood transfusion. Leff repaired the tear by way of a two-layer closure and he placed cadaveric fascia as an additional barrier. On April 6, 2011, the catheter was removed and for two weeks, Ahrony could urinate almost normally. However a bladder neck contracture developed, and a fistula causing urine to pour out of Ahrony’s rectum was ultimately diagnosed on April 22, 2011. Ahrony sued Leff; Leff’s partner, Richard Shapiro, M.D.; and the hospital were the prostatectomy was performed, Providence Tarzana Medical Center. Ahrony alleged that the defendants failed to obtain his informed consent and failed to consult with a general surgeon and that these failures constituted medical malpractice. Shapiro and Providence Tarzana Medical Center were ultimately dismissed from the case, and the matter continued against Leff only. Plaintiff’s counsel contended that Leff failed to obtain Ahrony’s informed consent regarding the “non-nerve sparing” aspect of the surgery, as the nerve was not spared in order to allow Ahrony the ability to maintain his ability for sensations and to avoid impotency. Counsel also contended that the one-inch rectal tear occurred because Leff could not distinguish between the prostate and the rectum and that it was below the standard of care to repair the rectal tear without first consulting with a general surgeon. In addition, plaintiff’s counsel contended that the repair improperly utilized cadaveric fascia, “dead tissue from a dead person,” which resulted in the breakdown of the repair and that when the fistula developed, a general surgeon should have been consulted. Defense counsel argued that the standard of care was met in all aspects of the treatment. Counsel contended that the non-nerve sparing procedure was discussed during two meetings with Ahrony and Ahrony’s wife and that the repair of the rectal tear and follow-up were appropriate. Counsel also contended that Ahrony had aggressive cancer, which was successfully removed via the prostatectomy, and the cancer was cured. Defense counsel further argued that complications during the prostatectomy were recognized and that the complications were accepted risks of the open radical prostatectomy., Ahrony developed a bladder neck contracture, resulting in a fistula that caused urine to pour out of his rectum. He has since undergone a series of procedures, but remains incontinent of urine and unable to achieve an erection. Ahrony is currently free of cancer, but he is now required to wear an external (condom) catheter, which is attached from his penis to a bag strapped to his leg to catch the draining urine. Ahrony claimed that as a result of his condition, he developed major depression, for which he is taking two prescribed medications and remains under the care of a psychologist.