During a routine colonoscopy procedure in Virginia, a man accidentally left his smartphone recording while under anesthesia. When he listened to the audio afterward, he was horrified to discover that the medical staff had spent the entire procedure mocking and insulting him. Deeply disturbed by what he heard, he filed a lawsuit against the anesthesiologist and the medical team for defamation, medical malpractice and emotional distress. A court ultimately ruled in his favor and awarded him a US$500,000 settlement — a verdict that attracted widespread public attention and sparked a national debate over patient dignity, medical ethics, and accountability in healthcare.

What Happened

The incident took place during a colonoscopy in April 2013 at a clinic in Reston, Virginia. The patient — identified only by the initials “D.B.” in court papers — decided beforehand to use his smartphone’s audio recorder to capture the post-procedure instructions, since he expected to feel groggy and possibly not remember them clearly. Unwittingly, he left the recorder running during the entire procedure — including while under sedation. 

When he replayed the recording on the drive home, he heard the anesthesiologist, Tiffany M. Ingham, along with other medical staff, making degrading, mocking, and offensive remarks about him — despite the fact that he was unconscious. Among the comments were suggestions of punching him, mockery of his medications, demeaning remarks about a genital rash (which was not relevant to the procedure), and crude speculations that he might have sexually transmitted diseases such as syphilis or “tuberculosis in the penis.” 

They also discussed how they would avoid the patient after the procedure, and one even suggested lying to him about what happened. The anesthesiologist reportedly planned to list a false diagnosis — namely hemorrhoids — in his medical records even though no such condition existed. 

Legal Action and Court Decision

Outraged by the discovery, the patient filed a lawsuit against Ingham and her anesthesia practice, alleging defamation, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, violation of health‑care standards, and medical malpractice. 

In response, the defense argued that the recording should be inadmissible because the patient was unconscious and therefore not a party to the conversation. However, under Virginia law — a “one‑party consent” state — only one participant needs to consent to recording. A judge rejected the defense’s motion to exclude the tape as evidence, declaring the audio “highly relevant.” 

After a three‑day trial, a jury awarded the patient US$500,000: US$100,000 for defamation (US$50,000 each for false claims that he had syphilis and tuberculosis), US$200,000 for medical malpractice, and US$200,000 in punitive damages. 

Reaction and Broader Implications

The case provoked strong reactions within the medical community and beyond. Many ethics experts condemned the behavior as deeply unprofessional and an egregious violation of the trust patients place in their caregivers. For example, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) noted that such conduct was “very disappointing” and contrary to guidelines requiring respect and dignity toward patients — especially since anesthetized patients are in a vulnerable state. 

Although the jury’s decision was hailed as a vindication of patient rights, the case also highlighted serious systemic concerns. It raised alarm about how easily health‑care professionals can dehumanize patients when they believe no one is listening — and how difficult it can be for patients to hold them accountable without concrete evidence. In this instance, the patient’s inadvertent recording was the only reason the mockery came to light.

Observers argued that the verdict should serve as a warning to health‑care organizations everywhere: institutions must ensure that staff uphold basic standards of professionalism, respect, and ethical behavior — even (or especially) when patients are unconscious and seemingly work no risk of “recall.”

Why This Case Still Matters

• Patient dignity and respect: The case underscores that medical care is not just about technical competence — it also requires empathy, dignity, and respect for patients as human beings, regardless of their condition.

• Ethics in anesthesia and sedation: As noted by anesthesiology experts, sedation does not guarantee patients’ permanent unconsciousness — people can sometimes have residual awareness. That makes respectful communication essential even under anesthesia. 

• Transparency and accountability: The verdict demonstrates that patients can — and sometimes must — hold providers accountable for misconduct. Recordings, informed consent laws, and judicial recourse all serve as mechanisms to check abuse.

• Broader public trust in health‑care: Incidents like this can seriously erode public confidence in medical professionals. By imposing legal and financial consequences, the justice system signals that such behavior is unacceptable and will be punished.