A New York jury on Friday awarded $2 million to a 22-year-old detransitioner, finding a psychologist and surgeon liable for malpractice over a double mastectomy performed when she was 16 and identified as a boy.
The six-member jury in Westchester County Supreme Court returned the verdict Jan. 30 after a three-week civil trial involving Fox Varian, who underwent breast removal surgery in 2019 at age 16 and later detransitioned.
Varian was awarded $1.6 million for past and future pain and suffering, plus $400,000 for future medical expenses, and is the first detransitioner malpractice lawsuit in the United States to go to trial and end in a plaintiff victory.
The defendants included psychologist Kenneth Einhorn, surgeon Dr. Simon Chin, and their respective employers. Jurors concluded Einhorn and Chin deviated from the standard of care in the events leading up to the irreversible procedure and skipped key steps in evaluating whether Varian should proceed with surgery.
Varian’s attorney, Adam Deutsch, sought $8 million in damages. Jurors ultimately awarded a total of $2 million. Varian testified that the surgery triggered immediate distress and later long-term physical pain, describing the moment she first saw her chest after surgery as shocking and destabilizing. “I immediately had a thought that this was wrong, and it couldn’t be true,” she testified. She also described ongoing nerve pain, calling it “searing hot … ripping sensations” across her chest.
The case did not ask jurors to decide whether gender-related surgeries for minors are appropriate as a general policy matter. Instead, the trial centered on whether clinicians in this specific case followed professional safeguards and basic standards of evaluation, communication, and informed consent before authorizing major surgery for a minor. Jurors heard testimony and reviewed evidence about the clinical chain that led to the surgery, including a referral letter that served as a key gateway to approval.
Einhorn wrote a referral letter supporting surgery in October 2019 after Varian first raised the idea earlier that year. Varian’s attorneys argued the letter included omissions and inaccuracies and failed to convey information necessary for the surgeon to receive a complete and accurate understanding of Varian’s psychological history and level of certainty. Trial evidence also included statements Varian made to staff at the Albany Pride Center prior to surgery, where she expressed uncertainty about her identity and described pressure to make a decision, including pressure from family, friends, and cultural expectations. She also indicated that voicing doubts could cause her to “lose credibility” with her mother.
Chin testified he would not have performed the surgery if he had known Varian was unsure about her gender identity. Defense attorneys disputed the claim that Varian lacked clarity at the time of surgery and argued she did not express regret until years later. They emphasized that Varian had previously stated she was happy with the results and continued to identify as male or nonbinary for years following the operation. A lawyer representing Einhorn read from an essay Varian wrote 10 months after surgery, stating: “It’s such an immense relief to wake up and not feel at odds with my body.” Varian testified that those earlier statements reflected cognitive dissonance and an effort to suppress internal conflict rather than resolution.
Varian’s mother, Claire Deacon, testified she opposed the surgery but ultimately consented because she feared Varian would commit suicide if she did not receive it. The defense countered that Varian had made similar threats repeatedly and argued that suicidal ideation did not originate with therapy.
The verdict arrives as detransitioner lawsuits and parental legal challenges involving pediatric gender medicine continue to expand nationwide, increasing legal scrutiny of referral practices, informed consent, and whether clinicians followed adequate safeguards before authorizing irreversible medical interventions. Josh Payne of the law firm Campbell Miller Payne, who attended the trial but was not involved in the case, said the jury “sent a clear message” that “justice will be served for vulnerable individuals who were misled into gender-transition procedures without appropriate safeguards.”
