San Diego Jury's Landmark Verdict in Surgical Negligence Case Brings Justice to Victims

Landmark Verdict In San Diego: A Case of Surgical Negligence

In a significant ruling on December 18, 2025, a San Diego jury awarded an astonishing $18,056,088 to Phuong Ho, a woman gravely affected by surgical negligence. The extensive damages stemmed from a catastrophic stroke resulting from the actions of neurosurgeon Dr. Sohaib Kureshi during a benign pituitary tumor removal procedure.

The Medical Background

Phuong Ho was referred to Dr. Kureshi after being diagnosed with a benign pituitary tumor, which is often manageable with surgical intervention. Imaging studies indicated that her left carotid artery was perilously close to the tumor's location. Despite the known risks, Dr. Kureshi recommended an endoscopic transsphenoidal surgery, a standard procedure wherein a surgeon uses the nasal passages to approach the pituitary gland with an endoscope. With over 10,000 similar operations occurring annually in the U.S., this surgical method is touted as minimally invasive. However, Ms. Ho's case would reveal the high stakes involved.

During the procedure, Dr. Kureshi took a biopsy and moved quickly to excise tumor tissue near the carotid artery. This led to the surgeon inadvertently striking the artery with surgical tools, triggering a debilitating stroke that paralyzed the right side of Ms. Ho's body. The aftermath left her with significant disabilities, including ongoing difficulties in using her right hand, although she has regained her speech and mobility to some extent.

Attorney Robert Vaage, representing Ms. Ho and her husband, Trinh Nguyen, highlighted the irreversible nature of the damages suffered. He stressed that these injuries are not just immediate but will haunt Ms. Ho for the rest of her life, emphasizing that the jury’s decision was crucial in holding the medical professional accountable for their actions.

The Verdict and Jury's Deliberation

Jurors faced a complex task, requiring them to determine whether negligence had occurred within a high-stakes medical environment. Attorney Vaage remarked on the difficulties jurors encountered, noting, “Ultimately, while the case involves neurosurgery, it came down to common sense, and the jury got it right.” After intense deliberations starting at 9:00 AM, the jury returned a verdict by 4:00 PM that same day, underscoring the urgency and significance of their decision. Judge Evan Kirvin presided over this case in the San Diego Superior Court.

One juror expressed disbelief at how Dr. Kureshi proceeded with the biopsy and then quickly tackled the most perilous regions of Ms. Ho's anatomy without sufficient caution. Testimonies indicated that Dr. Kureshi should have considered referring Ms. Ho to a specialist given the risks highlighted by her anatomical structure. This perspective resonated with several jurors, who felt Dr. Kureshi's action represented a lack of due diligence.

Legal and Ethical Implications

This case raises essential questions about medical standards and the accountability of healthcare providers. As medical technology continues to evolve, the urgency to ensure patient safety must remain central. Juries tasked with such cases may face a heightened responsibility to balance clinical expertise with patient rights, setting a precedent for how medical negligence is addressed in the courts.

Conclusion

The jury's decision in favor of Phuong Ho marks a pivotal moment in the dialogue surrounding surgical negligence. As her story becomes a benchmark within the legal landscape, it reinforces the significance of accountability among practitioners in the medical field. This verdict serves both as a reminder and a warning—that negligence, especially in critical surgical environments, carries profound consequences and that victims deserve justice.