Notes

This is a case about an immigrant who went to the doctor requesting a circumcision. He received a vasectomy instead.

Plaintiffs' Position:
The plaintiff, Mr. Zaw, is a refugee from Burma. He was sponsored to come to the US with his wife and three children in order to flee civil war in his country.

He went to a doctor for a consult on having a circumcision and a bead in his penis removed.

He did not speak English well. He was provided an interpreter. However, he asserts he was given a vasectomy instead of a circumcision, costing he and his wife the chance to have more children.

He sued the interpreter company who never told him the doctor was discussing a vasectomy, and he sued the clinic that performed the vasectomy despite the fact they had a fax from Mr. Zaw's doctor requesting a circumcision.

Defendants' Position
The interpreter company asserts that its people did translate what they were told and that they communicated to the clinic that Mr. Zaw wanted a circumcision.

The clinic asserts it gave Mr. Zaw a brochure explaining the vasectomy, and that they believed the interpreters told Mr. Zaw what surgery they were planning. They assert there is nothing more they could do.

Both defendants also assert that any damages are speculative, as a) there is no guarantee the family would have had more kids, and b) the surgery could be reversed but the plaintiff has refused to try.

You will read evidence from each side and then decide the case.