Unnecessary breast surgery lawsuits in Richmond raise serious questions about patient safety, informed consent, and hospital accountability. Recent CBS 6 investigations have brought attention to multiple lawsuits filed against a former Richmond-area breast surgeon and local hospitals, with patients alleging they underwent procedures that were not medically necessary or were performed by a surgeon who lacked proper qualifications.
The lawsuits against Dr. Sasa Espino and Richmond-area hospitals highlight how medical malpractice claims involving unnecessary surgery differ from typical negligence cases. When a patient consents to a procedure based on incomplete information, or when a hospital allows a surgeon to perform operations beyond their documented training, the legal and emotional consequences may be significant.
Key Takeaways for Unnecessary Breast Surgery Lawsuits in Richmond
- Virginia medical malpractice cases require testimony from a qualified medical expert. That expert must have actively practiced in the defendant's specialty or a related field within one year of the alleged malpractice.
- Hospitals may face liability if their credentialing process failed to properly evaluate a surgeon's qualifications and that failure contributed to patient harm.
- Informed consent means more than a signed form. If a surgeon failed to disclose alternatives or misrepresented risks, the consent may be challenged.
- Virginia law sets a two-year statute of limitations for most medical malpractice claims, with the clock usually running from the date of injury rather than the date of discovery.
- A second opinion that contradicts the original surgical recommendation often becomes key evidence in unnecessary surgery claims.
What Makes a Surgery "Unnecessary" Under Virginia Medical Malpractice Law
The term "unnecessary surgery" carries specific meaning in a Richmond medical malpractice lawsuit. A poor outcome alone does not make a procedure unnecessary. Instead, the legal question focuses on whether a reasonably prudent physician in the same specialty, given the same information, would have recommended and performed the same procedure.
The Standard of Care in Unnecessary Surgery Cases
Virginia courts define the standard of care as the level of skill and treatment that a competent healthcare provider in the same field would provide under similar circumstances. In unnecessary mastectomy lawsuits in Virginia, this means examining whether the patient's medical condition actually warranted the surgery.
According to recent CBS 6 reporting, one plaintiff's lawsuit alleges that a subsequent physician reviewed her records and stated she "would not have recommended risk-reducing mastectomies." Medical records reportedly showed her mammogram "did not show any concerning abnormalities." This type of second-opinion testimony often becomes central to unnecessary surgery claims.
How Courts Evaluate Whether Surgery Was Medically Justified
Judges and juries rely on qualified medical experts to evaluate whether a surgery was justified. These experts review the evidence and offer opinions about whether the physician's decisions met Virginia's standard of care.
Medical evidence forms the foundation of these cases. The following elements typically receive close scrutiny:
- Pre-operative test results, including mammograms, biopsies, and genetic testing
- The physician's documented rationale for recommending surgery
- Whether alternative treatments existed and were disclosed to the patient
- Opinions from qualified medical professionals about appropriate care
- Post-operative findings that may contradict the original diagnosis
A breast reconstruction malpractice case in Richmond may hinge on whether pathology reports or other diagnostic evidence supported the surgeon's recommendation. When post-operative analysis reveals no malignancy or elevated risk, medical experts evaluate whether the original decision to operate met Virginia's standard of care.
Informed Consent and Alternative Treatment Disclosure
Informed consent involves more than signing paperwork before surgery. Virginia law requires physicians to provide patients with sufficient information to make an informed decision about their care. This includes explaining risks, benefits, and alternative treatment options.
When Consent May Be Challenged
A patient may have signed consent forms yet still have grounds for a lawsuit. The key question is whether the surgeon met Virginia's standard of care when obtaining that consent. Courts look at what information the patient received and whether it was accurate and complete.
In the lawsuits referenced in CBS 6 coverage, one plaintiff alleges she was told she was "almost certain to develop breast cancer" despite negative genetic testing results. If medical experts later determine that such risk assessments were inconsistent with accepted medical standards, the consent may be challenged.
A board-certified plastic surgeon quoted in the CBS 6 investigation stated that for one patient, "the appropriate management for that situation was closer observation, it was not surgical intervention."
Documentation That Supports Informed Consent Claims
Patients who suspect their consent was not truly informed may look for inconsistencies between what they were told and what their records show.
Key documentation in these cases might include:
- Written consent forms and what they disclosed
- Office visit notes describing pre-operative conversations
- Genetic testing results and their interpretation
- Mammogram and imaging reports
- Any written materials provided about the procedure
When verbal representations differ from documented medical findings, these discrepancies may become important evidence for expert witnesses to evaluate.
Scope of Practice and Surgical Qualifications
One distinctive aspect of the Richmond breast surgeon malpractice cases involves allegations about the surgeon's qualifications. Plaintiffs claim she performed complex procedures that exceeded her documented training and demonstrated competency. This raises questions about both the individual physician's conduct and the hospital's role in granting surgical privileges.
What "Scope of Practice" Means in Surgical Malpractice
A physician's scope of practice relates to the procedures they are qualified to perform based on their education, training, credentialing, and demonstrated competency. Board certification in a specialty indicates that a physician has completed additional training and passed examinations in that field.
The lawsuits against Dr. Espino allege she performed procedures beyond her documented training. Coverage notes she completed a general surgery residency and breast surgical oncology fellowship but was not a board-certified reconstructive and plastic surgeon.
Complex Breast Reconstruction and Specialist Training
Breast reconstruction procedures vary significantly in complexity. Some involve implant placement, while others require advanced techniques like latissimus dorsi flaps, which transfer muscle and tissue from the back to rebuild the breast.
One lawsuit detailed in CBS 6 coverage alleges that a patient underwent a lat flap surgery that left her with a "severe deformity." A board-certified plastic surgeon who reviewed the records reportedly stated the surgery "was not consistent with the standard of care."
The American Cancer Society recommends that patients seeking breast reconstruction find an experienced board-certified plastic surgeon. This guidance reflects the specialized training these procedures require.
Hospital Liability for Negligent Credentialing in Virginia
Hospitals do not simply allow any licensed physician to perform any procedure within their facilities. Instead, hospitals grant specific privileges through a credentialing process that reviews a physician's training, experience, and competency.
How Credentialing Failures May Lead to Hospital Liability
When a hospital grants surgical privileges to a physician who lacks adequate training for specific procedures, the hospital may share liability for resulting patient injuries. Virginia law recognizes a legal theory called negligent credentialing. Under this theory, a hospital may be held accountable if its credentialing process failed to reasonably evaluate a physician's qualifications and that failure contributed to patient harm.
The lawsuits against Chippenham and Johnston Willis hospitals allege the facilities "negligently credentialed" Dr. Espino to perform breast reconstruction procedures, “even though they knew or should have known" about alleged qualification gaps.
Hospital credentialing committees typically evaluate several factors before granting privileges.
These committees generally review:
- Formal training and residency completion
- Board certifications and specialty credentials
- Case logs documenting procedures performed
- References from other institutions
- Any history of malpractice claims or disciplinary actions
When plaintiffs allege these processes failed to catch qualification gaps, patients may pursue claims against both the surgeon and the hospital.
Hospital Responses and Ongoing Professional Review
According to statements provided to CBS 6, hospital representatives stated that the surgeon's "request for privileges was carefully reviewed by a Credentials Committee and Medical Executive Committee." They indicated these committees "evaluate many factors including the provider's formal training, certifications, licenses, and past surgical experience."
The ongoing litigation alleges this review process was inadequate. Virginia law allows patients to pursue claims against both the individual physician and the hospital when evidence supports allegations that credentialing failures contributed to patient harm.
Damages in Unnecessary Surgery Medical Malpractice Cases
Patients who undergo unnecessary surgery may experience harm that differs from typical surgical malpractice cases. Beyond physical injury, these cases often involve significant emotional and psychological damages.
Physical and Emotional Harm Unique to Unnecessary Procedures
An unnecessary mastectomy fundamentally differs from a surgery that was needed but performed negligently. When a patient loses healthy tissue or organs that did not require removal, the harm extends beyond surgical complications.
Categories of Damages Patients May Pursue
Virginia medical malpractice claims allow patients to pursue compensation for various categories of harm.
Damages in unnecessary surgery cases may include:
- Medical expenses for the unnecessary procedure and corrective surgeries
- Lost wages during recovery periods
- Physical pain and suffering from surgical trauma
- Emotional distress and psychological harm
- Loss of body parts or permanent disfigurement
- Reduced quality of life and loss of enjoyment
Virginia's Medical Malpractice Damages Cap
Virginia is one of several states that limits how much a patient may recover in a medical malpractice case, regardless of what a jury awards. Virginia law sets this cap based on when the alleged malpractice occurred. Lawsuit demand figures are often much higher than what Virginia law ultimately permits.
Filing an Unnecessary Breast Surgery Lawsuit in Virginia
Virginia has specific procedural requirements for medical malpractice claims that differ from other personal injury cases. Patients considering a lawsuit must navigate these requirements carefully.
The Medical Malpractice Review Panel Process
Virginia offers a medical malpractice review panel process that either party may request after a lawsuit is filed. If a panel is requested, the court case is typically paused while the panel conducts its review. The panel then issues a non-binding opinion on whether malpractice occurred.
This process may help both sides understand the strengths and weaknesses of a claim, though the panel's opinion does not bind the court or jury at trial.
Statute of Limitations Considerations
Virginia law generally requires medical malpractice claims to be filed within two years after the cause of action accrues. Unlike some states, Virginia usually starts the clock when the injury occurs, not when the patient discovers it. Limited exceptions exist for situations involving fraud, concealment, or foreign objects left in the body.
When these exceptions apply, Virginia's statutory extensions generally cannot push the filing deadline beyond 10 years from when the cause of action accrued. These deadlines make timely consultation with an attorney important for patients who suspect they received unnecessary surgery.
Warning Signs That May Indicate an Unnecessary Surgery
Patients who underwent breast surgery and now question whether it was necessary may recognize certain patterns in their experience. While none of these factors automatically indicate malpractice, they may warrant a closer look.
Questions to Consider About Your Care
Several situations may lead patients to seek a second medical opinion or legal consultation. Consider whether any of these apply to your experience:
- A subsequent physician expressed surprise at your surgical history
- Your post-operative pathology showed no malignancy despite pre-operative cancer warnings
- You were not offered alternative treatments like surveillance or less invasive options
- Your surgeon performed procedures outside their primary specialty or documented training
- You underwent multiple revision surgeries to correct complications
These patterns do not prove wrongdoing on their own. However, they may justify having your records reviewed by another qualified physician or discussing your situation with an attorney.
The Role of Second Opinions in Identifying Unnecessary Surgery
Many patients only learn their surgery may have been unnecessary when another physician reviews their records. In the cases highlighted by CBS 6, subsequent treating physicians reportedly contradicted the original surgical recommendations.
A second opinion may reveal that your medical condition did not warrant the procedure performed. When a qualified physician states they would not have recommended the same surgery, this documentation often becomes central evidence in malpractice claims.
FAQ for Unnecessary Breast Surgery Lawsuits
Who is Dr. Sasa Espino and why are patients filing lawsuits?
Dr. Sasa Espino is a former Richmond-area breast surgeon who has been named in multiple lawsuits alleging she performed unnecessary surgeries or procedures beyond her documented training. According to CBS 6 investigations, she completed a general surgery residency and breast surgical oncology fellowship but was not board-certified in plastic surgery. She left the Richmond Breast Center at the end of 2024. The lawsuits also name Chippenham and Johnston Willis hospitals, alleging negligent credentialing. All allegations remain pending in litigation.
What evidence helps demonstrate that a surgery was unnecessary?
Strong evidence typically includes pre-operative diagnostic results that contradict the surgeon's stated rationale, testimony from qualified medical experts, and post-operative findings showing no pathology that justified surgery. Medical records documenting what the patient was told versus what tests actually showed may be particularly valuable when reviewed by experts.
What role does genetic testing play in unnecessary mastectomy claims?
Genetic testing identifies mutations like BRCA1 and BRCA2 that significantly increase breast cancer risk. When a patient tests negative for these mutations yet undergoes a preventive mastectomy, medical experts may evaluate whether the surgery was consistent with accepted medical standards. A negative genetic test does not automatically make a mastectomy unnecessary, but it may become important evidence if the surgeon's documented rationale relied heavily on cancer risk.
May family members file a lawsuit if a patient dies after unnecessary surgery?
Virginia law allows certain family members to pursue a wrongful death claim if a patient dies as a result of medical malpractice. The personal representative of the patient's estate typically files the lawsuit on behalf of statutory beneficiaries, which may include a spouse, children, or parents. These cases require the same expert testimony establishing that the surgery violated the standard of care and caused or contributed to the patient's death.
How do revision surgeries factor into an unnecessary surgery claim?
When patients require multiple follow-up procedures to correct complications from an initial surgery, each revision may add to the damages in a malpractice claim. Medical expenses, additional recovery time, lost wages, and prolonged pain and suffering all factor into the compensation a patient may pursue. Revision surgeries may also serve as evidence that the original procedure was not performed according to accepted standards.
What happens if the surgeon has moved to another state?
A surgeon who relocates does not escape liability for procedures performed in Virginia. Patients may still file suit in Virginia courts for malpractice that occurred here, regardless of where the surgeon currently practices. The lawsuit proceeds under Virginia law, and the surgeon remains subject to the jurisdiction where the alleged harm took place. However, pursuing claims across state lines may add procedural complexity that an experienced medical malpractice attorney can help navigate.
When Questions About Your Surgery Lead to Difficult Answers
Learning that a procedure you trusted your doctor to perform may not have been necessary brings a unique kind of grief. The physical scars tell only part of the story. Questions about what might have been, about trust that may have been misplaced, and about what comes next all merit thoughtful answers.
At Emroch & Kilduff, our Richmond medical malpractice attorneys understand that these cases involve more than legal theories. They involve real people who made vulnerable decisions based on information that may have been incomplete or misleading. We fight for fair compensation for patients harmed by allegedly unnecessary procedures or by surgeons who allegedly lacked the qualifications to perform them.
If a second physician has told you they would not have recommended your surgery, or if you have questions about your surgeon's training, a conversation may help clarify your options. Our team offers free consultations with no upfront costs. We handle medical malpractice cases on a contingency fee basis, which means you pay nothing unless we recover compensation for you.
Contact Emroch & Kilduff to discuss your situation. Our Virginia offices serve patients throughout Richmond, Chesterfield, Henrico, Powhatan, and surrounding Central Virginia communities.
