Gaston County Judge Dismisses Prisha Mosley's Fraud Claims in Gender Transition Case

GASTONIA, NC — In a pivotal ruling, a Gaston County judge has dismissed Prisha Mosley's fraud and conspiracy-to-fraud claims against medical providers involved in her gender transition procedures.

 

This decision also upholds the previous dismissal of her medical malpractice claims, despite recent legislative efforts to extend the statute of limitations for such cases.

 

Presiding over the Civil Superior Court, Judge Robert C. Ervin stated:

 

“The Court concludes, with respect to all of the motions listed above, that there are no genuine issues of material fact in this case and that all of the defendants are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”

 

The judge granted summary judgment in favor of all defendants, dismissing Mosley's claims “with prejudice,” thereby preventing her from refiling them.

 

In 2023, Mosley initiated legal action against several healthcare professionals, alleging fraud, negligence, and malpractice related to gender transition interventions she now regrets.

 

Initially, her fraud-related claims survived dismissal, while her malpractice claims were barred due to North Carolina's four-year limit on medical malpractice lawsuits.

 

However, the landscape shifted when the state legislature passed House Bill 805, extending the malpractice statute of limitations for gender-transition-related cases to 10 years.

 

This law, effective July 29, 2024, aimed to provide a broader window for individuals to seek legal recourse in such matters.

 

Despite this legislative change, the recent court ruling dismissed all of Mosley's fraud and conspiracy claims and determined that her medical malpractice claim could not be revived under the new statute, even with the extended timeline.

 

Mosley's lawsuit named several medical providers and organizations, including Piedmont Plastic Surgery and Dermatology, P.A.; Family Solutions, PLLC; Tree of Life Counseling, PLLC; and The Moses Cone Memorial Hospital Operating Corporation (Cone Health).

 

The ruling has sparked criticism from advocacy groups.

 

Tami Fitzgerald, executive director of the NC Values Coalition, expressed her disapproval:

 

“People like Prisha deserve the ability to hold the doctors who committed medical malpractice against them with harmful gender transition interventions accountable. Judge Ervin was wrong to deny her motion.”

 

Mosley's legal team is expected to file an appeal.

 

Mary Summa, general counsel for the NC Values Coalition, commented:

 

“The research is clear that the judge’s ruling should be reversed on appeal. Even at the time Prisha was given puberty blockers, cross-sex hormones, and had her breasts surgically removed, there was no substantive evidence showing that these procedures met a standard of care. Furthermore, she was not properly advised as to the consequences of taking these drugs or undergoing surgery. There are issues of material facts, and they need to be addressed to bring justice for Prisha.”

 

If the appeal is successful, the malpractice claim could be reinstated, potentially setting a precedent for detransitioner litigation.

 

Such a decision could significantly impact accountability in cases involving long-term harms from earlier gender transition procedures.

 

In related developments, the World Professional Association for Transgender Health (WPATH) released a report that may influence ongoing transgender lawsuits in North Carolina.

 

The report raises concerns about the lack of evidence supporting surgical interventions for gender dysphoria, acknowledging that the risks of such procedures may outweigh their benefits.

 

This development could have implications for cases like Mosley's, where the adequacy of informed consent and the standard of care are central issues.

 

As the legal proceedings continue, the outcome of Mosley's appeal may have far-reaching consequences for individuals seeking to hold medical professionals accountable for gender transition interventions.

 

The case underscores the ongoing debate over the medical and ethical considerations surrounding gender-affirming care, particularly for minors.

 

Observers and stakeholders will be closely monitoring the appeal process, as its resolution could influence future litigation and policy decisions in North Carolina and beyond.

 

For now, Mosley and her supporters remain steadfast in their pursuit of justice and accountability.

 

As the legal landscape evolves, the conversation around gender transition procedures and the rights of detransitioners continues to gain prominence.

 

In the meantime, the community awaits further developments in this landmark case.

 

As the situation unfolds, it serves as a focal point for broader discussions on medical ethics, patient rights, and the responsibilities of healthcare providers in the realm of gender-affirming care.

 

As the legal process progresses, the implications of this case will likely resonate beyond the courtroom, influencing public discourse and policy considerations related to gender transition interventions.

 

For now, all eyes are on the forthcoming appeal and its potential to reshape the legal landscape for detransitioners seeking justice.