Skip to main content

Attorney Disciplined After Repeated Lawsuits About Penis Amputation


An Alabama lawyer filed a lawsuit on behalf of a client who said he went to a hospital for a circumcision and ended up with an amputated penis, but the judge tossed it out, saying it wasn’t substantial enough (the lawsuit). The complaint was filed against multiple doctors, the hospital, and clinics, who all maintained that there were no records that an amputation took place. The judge gave John Patrick Graves 30 days to file an amended complaint, but the new one still didn’t measure up to the court’s standards, and the judge dismissed that one as well.

Now, the Alabama Board of Bar Commissioners is ordering a public reprimand for Graves.

The first lawsuit, filed in July 2014, failed to specifically say what the doctors allegedly did to the 59-year-old diabetic patient. The disciplinary notice said that Graves didn’t review any medical records before filing the first lawsuit. The notice said “he had an opportunity to amend the complaint, dismiss inappropriately-named defendants and eliminate the plainly false allegations,” but “failed to do so, instead filing an amended complaint asserting claims and maintaining allegations that were clearly without merit.”

The first lawsuit said that the alleged amputation took place in June, while the second one claimed it happened in February. Neither one made specific claims against anyone. After the amended complaint was filed, one of the defense attorneys involved told the court, “The complaint is, if anything is vaguer, more hypothetical and less specific than the first suit.”

Court records reportedly indicated that the patient had a circumcision for medical purposes on February 14, 2014, but there was no amputation, nor were there complications with the circumcision. Records showed that after the procedure, doctors found that the man had dead tissue on his penis due to a variety of medical conditions, but when the doctors named in the lawsuit had last seen him, no amputation had taken place, reported.

“Graves knew or should have known that it contained meritless claims and contentions that served no purpose other than to harass or maliciously injure one or more defendants,” the notice said.

Defense attorneys in the case had pushed for sanctions against Graves, but the court said no.

Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

Filed Under:

Follow Law&Crime: