by Worriedmom

Third in a series. Part 1 is here. Part 2 is here.

4thWaveNow contributor Worriedmom has practiced civil litigation for many years in federal and state courts.

Since our last coverage of medical malpractice litigation against renowned phalloplasty surgeon Curtis Crane, M.D., we’ve received frequent inquiries about the current status of the lawsuits and his practice. Research has revealed some interesting facts and circumstances about Dr. Crane.

First, as of this writing, there no longer appear to be any open civil cases against Dr. Crane in the state of California. All eight of the malpractice cases that had previously been pending in the San Francisco Superior Court have now been “dismissed with prejudice” (read on to understand the meaning of “with prejudice” in the settlement context, since this doesn’t mean what some folks may assume it does).

Specifically:

Doe v. Crane, CGC-16-550630 was dismissed April 5, 2017.

Carter v. Crane, CGC-16-554254 was dismissed December 10, 2018.

Raynor v. Crane, CGC-17-556713 was dismissed November 8, 2018.

Carson v. Crane, CGC-17-556743 was dismissed October 10, 2018.

Doe v. Crane, CGC-17-557327 was dismissed November 8, 2018.

Davis v. Crane, CGC-17-557363 was dismissed December 10, 2018.

Shepherd v. Crane, CGC-17-559294, dismissed October 3, 2018.

Doe v. Crane, CGC-17-560690 was dismissed March 15, 2019.[1]

A ninth malpractice case, Hansen v. Crane (CGC-18-571442), brought in November of last year, was also dismissed on January 14, 2019. As with the other actions listed above, this lawsuit also alleged malpractice in connection with genital surgery:

Interestingly, the plaintiff in that case alleged that at the time he consulted Dr. Crane, Dr. Crane told him that “none of his patients had ever had a serious complication from phalloplasty, that it was a safe procedure, and that only 5% of his patients have needed surgical repairs.”

As of the writing of this article, however, all of the malpractice litigation filed against Dr. Crane in San Francisco has now been dismissed. What does this mean? It’s impossible to know.

What we do know is that none of these dismissals appear to have been the result of a jury or other type of fact-finding proceeding that evaluated Dr. Crane’s conduct and made any findings about negligence or malpractice. In other words, it does not appear that an independent arbiter has reviewed the facts of these cases and ruled on whether the care provided either complied, or did not comply, with established “standards of care.” This is not surprising, since over 90% of all medical malpractice cases never go to trial.

One might reasonably conclude, then, that all of these actions have been settled out of court. For what amount of damages? We can’t know. It could be zero, it could be $10 million. The amount paid in settlement of such a claim is confidential virtually 100% of the time. The medical liability insurance carrier is, in most cases these days, the party that decides whether or not to settle a case, and this is a “business decision” on the carrier’s part.

From interrogatory answers filed in the Raynor case, cited above, we do know something about Dr. Crane’s professional liability and medical malpractice coverage in 2016, the date the malpractice alleged in that case was claimed to have occurred (see Motion for Relief from Waiver of Discovery Objections dated April 16, 2018, Declaration of Corban J. Porter and Exhibit D thereto):

Private settlement agreements also typically include “NDA” (or non-disclosure agreement) provisions, in which the parties agree to keep all terms of the settlement confidential, and further agree to the payment of damages in the event of a breach. These NDA provisions have, of course, come under public scrutiny as part of the “MeToo” movement and the Stormy Daniels affairs. Some commentators argue that keeping medical malpractice settlement amounts confidential hurts the public:

Secret nondisclosure agreements also affect patient safety by allowing bad doctors and other dangerous medical providers to continue to harm patients because their incompetency is hidden from their present and future patients and employers.

Finally, these litigations were also dismissed “with prejudice,” which means that the plaintiff cannot bring another lawsuit based on the same facts. This makes sense, because otherwise no defendant would ever pay money in settlement of a litigation if he or she knew that the plaintiff could simply re-file the same lawsuit another day.  So, it’s important to understand: When dismissal “with prejudice” is entered as part of a settlement, it does not indicate that anyone has ruled on the merits of the case.

That’s it for our legal update, but for those of us who are interested in Dr. Crane and his business model, there have been some additional developments.

Most important, it appears that Dr. Crane may no longer be performing surgery in the state of California (although his medical license is still current in that state). His prior practice, Brownstein & Crane Surgical Services, seems to be out of business. Any internet searches for brownsteincrane.com result in a re-direct to “Crane Center for Transgender Surgery,” a practice operating in California and Texas.

In and of itself, this is not surprising. According to the Crane Center’s Facebook page, Dr. Brownstein retired in 2013, after having performed “thousands of FTM chest surgeries” and passing this extensive knowledge along to Dr. Crane.

What is notable is that, as of the time of our earlier article in 2018, Brownstein-Crane was a thriving California transgender medical practice. According to the Wayback Machine, which is the only source for information on the practice, back in March of 2018, Brownstein-Crane, in addition to Dr. Crane, employed:

• Thomas Satterwhite, M.D. (plastic surgeon);
• Heidi Wittenberg, M.D. (OB/GYN, surgeon);
• Michael Safir, M.D. (uro-genital reconstructive surgeon);
• Ashley DeLeon, M.D. (uro-genital surgeon);
• Charles Lee, M.D. (micro-surgeon);
• David Chang, M.D. (surgeon);
• Gabriel Kind, M.D. (plastic surgeon); and
• Michael Parrett, M.D. (plastic surgeon).

A photograph that appeared on Brownstein-Crane’s now-defunct website.

Of all those doctors, today only Drs. DeLeon and Safir remain affiliated with Dr. Crane. Dr. Crane now appears to practice in Austin, Texas, and has been joined there by Dr. Richard Santucci (together with Dr. DeLeon); Dr. Safir holds down the fort in San Francisco and has been joined by Dr. Angela Rodriguez. Dr. Crane’s website indicates that information about the Crane Center’s doctors is “coming soon.”

It’s not clear when Dr. Santucci joined Dr. Crane’s practice, but he does not appear to have been part of the earlier Brownstein-Crane incarnation:

Source.

Not to worry, though: Dr. Safir remains busy in San Francisco.

 Source.

The Crane Center has wasted no time in accessing potential new patients, sending attractive representatives to attend such conferences as Gender Odyssey in San Diego and the Philadelphia Trans Wellness Conference, and sponsoring art festivals and pride events.

For an added bonus, prospective patients may even be able to receive a free initial surgery consultation, right there at the conference!

What is the story behind Dr. Crane’s relocation to Texas?

It’s impossible to know. Perhaps some of his current or former patients will enlighten us.

[1] Interestingly, on March 7, 2019, Crane’s defense counsel in this case was ordered to pay a $1,800 sanction for “misuse of the discovery process.”