Woman Sues Doctor over tempory Tattoo

LadyT

LadyT

JPP Modarater
Contributor
A Camden County woman is suing her orthopedic surgeon for putting a temporary tattoo on her stomach while he operated on her in April.

Elizabeth Mateo discovered the rose below her panty line the next morning.


Lawyer Gregg Shivers says she was extremely emotionally upset, especially because her surgery was on her back...more at link


Its one thing to report him, but there really wasn't any damage done. I'd be surprised if she was awarded anything.
 
LadyT said:
A Camden County woman is suing her orthopedic surgeon for putting a temporary tattoo on her stomach while he operated on her in April.

Elizabeth Mateo discovered the rose below her panty line the next morning.


Lawyer Gregg Shivers says she was extremely emotionally upset, especially because her surgery was on her back...more at link


Its one thing to report him, but there really wasn't any damage done. I'd be surprised if she was awarded anything.
Click to expand...


It's almost certainly battery. And I can't imagine a jury not awarding her significant damages. It's pretty fucking creepy.
 
I think as part of the settlement the DR should have to have "pervert" temp tatooed on his forehead for a few weeks.
 
Hes not stupid but he does seem to think he has the right to "do things" to peoples bodies while he has them under anesthesia.
 
That is way creepy! Sounds like he has some serious power issues going on. I'd consider suing, too.

What's a "temporary tattoo" anyway? Is it one of those decal-like things that eventually wash off?

Personally I really hate tats.
 
Yeah they wash off in a couple of days.

He might have well written her a note on her body saying he thought she was hot.
 
Throw the case out. It's stupid. Maybe he should have been crafty enough to lie and say "We use a temporary tattoo as a means of marking the patient so that we can prevent incorrect procedures being done."

For pity sake, it's not like he labeled her stomach "Insert coins below" with an arrow pointing at her particulars. It was a f'ing rose.
 
Last edited:
And that rose had nothing to do with what she was paying him to do.

She did not ask for him to decorate her private parts before operating on her back.

Its her fucking body and he had no right to even touch it in the place he put the tattoo on.

It is about the entire reason people do not want to have their bodies naked and helpless while getting treatment.

Its a breach of a major trust issue.
 
Desh said:
And that rose had nothing to do with what she was paying him to do.

She did not ask for him to decorate her private parts before operating on her back.

Its her fucking body and he had no right to even touch it in the place he put the tattoo on.

It is about the entire reason people do not want to have their bodies naked and helpless while getting treatment.

Its a breach of a major trust issue.
Click to expand...


I understand that I have a different perspective, being male, but it doesn't seem like an issue for a lawsuit.

He didn't put the decal on her nether regions or her nipples. He didn't fondle her. Apparently its something he does often. Most surgeries involve at least a few other people in the room before the surgeon gets there and after he leaves.

Its a temporary tattoo on her lower stomach.

Yeah, its a little weird, but not lawsuit material.
 
He had to touch her in places she did not authorize him to touch. He placed it "below the panty line" which on a woman is right next to her pubes. He had no right to be touching her there. It was a fucking back opperation. She should have been on her back before he was even in the room.
 
Desh said:
He had to touch her in places she did not authorize him to touch. He placed it "below the panty line" which on a woman is right next to her pubes. He had no right to be touching her there. It was a fucking back opperation. She should have been on her back before he was even in the room.
Click to expand...

Since I'm not sure how the surgery she had was performed, I'm not sure why he put it there.

Its above her pubes which means its on her lower stomach.

Is there any sort of evidence that he fondled her? Groped between her legs? Grabbed her tits?

I don't think she expected it, but she also cannot expect to be able to say "you can touch here but not here".

If he were fondling her he certainly wouldn't have marked the spot.

It may not be appropriate (again, I'm not sure what the surgery involved), but it hardly seems legally actionable.
 
Desh said:
And that rose had nothing to do with what she was paying him to do.

She did not ask for him to decorate her private parts before operating on her back.

Its her fucking body and he had no right to even touch it in the place he put the tattoo on.

It is about the entire reason people do not want to have their bodies naked and helpless while getting treatment.

Its a breach of a major trust issue.
Click to expand...

Compensatory damages based on actual damage. $3.98 for a bottle of nail polish remover and a cotton ball - but since this was likely supplied by the hospital, no $.

Punitive - $5.
 
Performing back surgery has nothing to do with touching her below the panty line.


She was OUT so she will forever wonder what else he did.
 
Desh said:
Performing back surgery has nothing to do with touching her below the panty line.


She was OUT so she will forever wonder what else he did.
Click to expand...

That is why any jury on Earth will be more than happy to award her damages.

The doctor is obviously a fucking creepo.
 
I would definitely sue if some doctor was playing in my daughter's panty line area when the surgery was not in that area to begin with. I would, without doubt, request a video if it were made so that I could visually verify that nothing untoward did happen.
 
How did such a creepo make it through medical school without doing something equally disturbing?

Seems this psycho should have been filtered out a long time ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top