Introduction and Case Background of the Sanchez v. NuMale Medical Center Lawsuit
Sanchez v. NuMale Medical Center LLC arose from allegations that a men’s health clinic in New Mexico engaged in negligent and deceptive practices that caused permanent injury to a patient. The case was filed in New Mexico state court in 2020 and later proceeded to a jury trial in Bernalillo County in November 2024. The jury returned a verdict of more than $412 million in favor of the plaintiff.
According to public reporting, Michael E. Sanchez sought treatment in 2017 after experiencing fatigue and weight loss. He later alleged that NuMale Medical Center diagnosed him with erectile dysfunction and placed him on a course of injection-based treatment that was not medically necessary. Sanchez contended that the treatment caused permanent physical injury.
Public reporting described the verdict as involving findings tied to negligent conduct, fraudulent conduct, and violations of New Mexico’s Unfair Practices Act. That combination placed medical judgment, patient disclosures, clinic representations, business practices, and damages at the center of the litigation.
Key Developments in the Sanchez v. NuMale Medical Center Case
2017 - Initial Treatment and Alleged Misdiagnosis
In 2017, Michael E. Sanchez reportedly went to NuMale Medical Center seeking care after experiencing fatigue and weight loss. According to the allegations later presented in the case, the clinic diagnosed him with erectile dysfunction and directed treatment toward that condition instead of adequately evaluating other possible causes of his symptoms.
Sanchez claimed the clinic recommended treatment that was not medically justified and started him on a course of care that should not have been prescribed under the circumstances.
2017 - Injection Treatment and Alleged Permanent Injury
After that diagnosis, Sanchez underwent erectile dysfunction injection treatment at the clinic. He alleged that the treatment was unnecessary and that it caused permanent injury.
This period formed the factual core of the lawsuit. It connected the plaintiff’s arguments about medical necessity, patient disclosures, causation, and the extent of the harm he claimed to have suffered.
2020 - Civil Lawsuit Filed in New Mexico State Court
In 2020, Sanchez filed a civil lawsuit in New Mexico state court against NuMale Medical Center LLC and related defendants. The case proceeded in Bernalillo County in the Second Judicial District Court.
Public reporting described the case as involving claims tied to negligent conduct, fraudulent conduct, and violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act. Those theories expanded the dispute beyond a narrow malpractice claim and placed the clinic’s representations and business methods at issue alongside the medical care itself.
2024 - Pretrial Proceedings and Trial Setting
As the case moved toward trial, court records showed that it was placed on the Bernalillo County civil trial calendar in 2024. By that stage, the dispute had evolved into a broader fight over the clinic’s treatment decisions, the plaintiff’s injury claims, and the scale of damages being sought.
The public sources reviewed for this case do not clearly identify expert witnesses by name.
November 2024 - Jury Trial and Verdict in Bernalillo County
In November 2024, the case was tried before a jury in Bernalillo County, New Mexico. After hearing the evidence, the jury returned a verdict of more than $412 million in favor of Sanchez.
Public reporting stated that the verdict reflected findings tied to negligent conduct, fraudulent conduct, and violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act. Reporting also described the award as including compensatory and punitive damages, helping explain why the verdict was unusually large.
May 2025 - Post-Trial Proceedings Continued
The case did not conclude immediately after the verdict. Court records show that post-trial proceedings continued into 2025, including matters involving costs and prejudgment interest.
Types of Expert Witnesses in the Medical Malpractice Case and Their Contributions
-
Medical Malpractice Expert Witness
Medical malpractice experts would typically evaluate whether the provider met the applicable standard of care and whether the treatment decisions were medically justified. In a case like this, their analysis may also address causation, informed consent, and whether the alleged injury is consistent with the procedures performed.
-
Urology or Sexual Health Expert Witness
Urology or sexual health experts are often important in litigation involving erectile dysfunction treatment. These witnesses may assess whether the patient was an appropriate candidate for the treatment, whether the clinic’s approach aligned with accepted medical practice, and whether the risks of treatment were adequately explained.
-
Healthcare Administration or Practice Management Expert Witness
Healthcare administration experts can become important when a plaintiff alleges that clinic operations played a role in the harm. In a case like this, they may evaluate intake procedures, treatment protocols, sales methods, internal incentives, and whether the clinic’s structure encouraged unnecessary treatment.
-
Economic Damages and Life Care Expert Witness
When a plaintiff alleges permanent injury, damages experts are often used to estimate the long-term financial effect of that harm. Their work may include future medical expenses, life care planning, lost earnings, and other economic consequences tied to the claimed injury.
Useful Information for Medical Malpractice Lawyers and Litigators
-
Medical Negligence Claims Can Expand Into Consumer Protection Litigation
This case shows how a healthcare dispute can expand beyond a standard malpractice claim. When a plaintiff alleges that a clinic’s representations, sales practices, or business model contributed to the injury, the case may also involve fraud-based or consumer protection theories that broaden the evidence and increase damages exposure.
-
Business Practices May Become Central in Clinical Liability Cases
Healthcare litigation may focus on more than a single treatment decision. Intake procedures, patient communications, marketing language, and internal operational practices can become central when the plaintiff argues that unnecessary treatment was tied to broader clinic conduct.
-
Medical Necessity Can Become a Powerful Jury Issue
Cases involving allegedly unnecessary procedures often present a compelling narrative at trial. When the plaintiff argues that the treatment should never have been recommended in the first place, the dispute may turn on judgment, motive, and patient trust rather than only on technical execution.
-
Fraud and Statutory Claims Can Increase Damages Exposure
The reported verdict in this case reflects how sharply damages exposure can rise when the jury finds conduct beyond ordinary negligence. Fraud-related findings and statutory consumer-protection claims may create risk far beyond standard compensatory damages and can reshape trial strategy from the beginning of the case.
-
Post-Trial Motion Practice Matters in Large-Verdict Cases
Large verdicts are often followed by extensive post-trial litigation involving costs, prejudgment interest, remittitur requests, and other damages-related issues. Lawyers handling high-value healthcare cases need to prepare not only for trial, but also for the motions and hearings that follow it.
Conclusion
Sanchez v. NuMale Medical Center LLC involved allegations that a men’s health clinic misdiagnosed a patient, recommended unnecessary erectile dysfunction treatment, and caused permanent injury through injection-based care. The case proceeded in New Mexico state court and resulted in a jury verdict exceeding $412 million after reported findings tied to negligent conduct, fraudulent conduct, and violations of the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act.
As presented in public reporting and court records, the case centered on medical necessity, patient disclosures, clinic representations, business practices, and damages. It also shows how a medical treatment dispute can grow into broader litigation when the plaintiff alleges that the provider’s conduct was shaped not only by clinical decision-making, but also by the way the practice operated as a business.
