The Superior Court of Pennsylvania on October 26, 2026, upheld a $ 9.5 million judgment in a case dating back to 2018. The case involves a urologist and his medical practice after a patient who got a vasectomy had to later get his left testicle removed surgically following complications.
The Superior Court of Pennsylvania upheld the decision previously made by the trial court to award damages to Matthew Brennen after he experienced medical complications following his vasectomy that led to the removal of his left testicle.
The amount will be awarded to both Matthew and his wife, Lisa Brennen, following the verdict delivered by the jury in Fayette County.
The lawsuit dates back to 2018, when a urologist, Dr. Jason A. Smith, performed a surgical procedure. Dr. Jason is a shareholder at Tri-County Urology Associates, Inc.
In October 2018, Matthew Brennen underwent a regular vasectomy under the care of Dr. Smith.
According to the reports and the legal documents filed at the Suprior Court of Pennsylvania under the docket number 1050 WDA 2025, Mr. Brennen suffered immense pain and extreme medical complications soon after his surgery.
The Brennen family later filed a medical malpractice lawsuit against Dr. Smith and Tri-County Urology Associates, Inc.
According to the reports, the doctor did not properly examine Mr. Brennen before he underwent the vasectomy procedure.
The couple argued that the check was necessary to understand the possible risks of the procedure and to prevent post-operation complications.
A medical representative who testified for the Brennen family in court said that Dr. Smith did not provide the patient with proper post-operative care.
According to the reports, the doctors said that Mr. Brennen’s tissues were damaged after the vasectomy, so he had to undergo a gonadectomy procedure. Gonadectomy is a procedure for the surgical removal of the gonads, which in his case was his left testicle.
Dr. Thomas M. Jaffe, a urologist who testified as an expert for the Brennens, said that the preoperative examination should have included an examination of the patient's genitals to locate the vas deferens safely. He testified that several clips and sutures were later found within the distal spermatic cord during the surgery to remove the testicle.
According to Dr. Jaffe, these should not have been placed there, and the clips and sutures caused the left testicle to lose its blood supply. He also testified that Dr. Smith should have stopped the procedure when he could not identify the vas deferens on the left side.
According to the court record, Brennen's pain worsened as the anaesthesia wore off. He underwent a second surgery and did not return to work for 12 months. His testimony and medical evidence presented at trial also described persistent pain and numbness affecting his daily activities and sexual function. His pain-management specialist testified that he was unlikely to achieve complete pain relief.
The case was first brought before the Fayette County Court of Common Pleas. The jury found in favour of all the claims of medical malpractice that were made by the Brennens.
The court awarded them a total of about $9.5 million, which included $8.5 million for Matthew Brennen. This included $3.75 million for past and future pain and suffering, $500,000 for past and future embarrassment and humiliation, $3.75 million for past and future loss of life's pleasures, and $500,000 for past and future disfigurement.
Lisa Brennen, his wife, was awarded $1 million for the damage the injury caused to their marriage. his comprised $250,000 for past loss of consortium and $750,000 for future loss of consortium. The rest of the money came from extra legal fees and penalties.
Also see: Mother Dies After Ovarian Cyst Surgery, NCDRC Awards ₹6 Lakh to Children in Medical Negligence Case
During the trial, the couple’s lawyers Michael Calder and Jennifer Webster argued against Dr. Smith’s defence team. The defence claimed that Mr. Brennen lost his testicle due to an unpredictable medical emergency that occurred after his vasectomy.
According to the reports, the defendant’s lawyers said that the complication was an episode of testicular torsion, when a testicle twists and cuts off its own blood supply.
Brennen’s lawyers said that it was not possible for Brennen to suffer from testicular torsion because of his age. They said that the loss was caused by surgical errors.
Dr Smith and Tri-County Urology Associates appealed to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. They asked whether there was enough viable evidence to support the verdict.
According to the reports, the court found the evidence sufficient to support the judgment and concluded that the doctor was negligent in providing post-operative care to Mr. Brennen and had failed to meet the medical standards.
In its October 26, 2026, memorandum decision, the Superior Court concluded that the evidence presented at trial was sufficient to support the jury's finding that Dr. Smith breached the standard of care and that his actions caused harm to Brennen. The court affirmed the judgment in favour of the Brennens.
Judge McLaughlin stated, "The jury's verdict is supported by substantial evidence that Dr. Smith did not meet the standard of care expected of a urologist during the vasectomy procedure."
The appeals court also agreed that the defence must pay $60,010 in penalties and fees for breaking the rules about sharing evidence.
As per the reports, these penalties were imposed by the trial court because the defence did not provide a complete medical history of Mr. Brennen during the pre-trial exchange.
The separate sanctions appeal, docket number 1054 WDA 2025, concerned legal fees awarded after the delayed production of complete medical records. The trial court awarded $60,010 in legal fees and $2,147.83 in costs, finding that the failure to provide the records in a timely manner was at least negligent. The Superior Court upheld the sanctions against the defendants' trial counsel.
Judge McLaughlin said that the defence's failure to provide the court with relevant documents justified the financial penalty.
However, Dr. Smith can still ask the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to review the case even after the ruling.
The Superior Court identified the main malpractice decision as non-precedential under Pennsylvania Superior Court Operating Procedure 65.37.
(Rh/ARC/MSM)