A federal court ruling issued on August 27, 2026, added another chapter to years of litigation involving former Ohio and Kentucky spinal surgeon Abubakar Atiq Durrani.
Hundreds of patients accused Durrani of performing unnecessary and harmful spinal operations, including procedures carried out in cases where less-invasive treatment could have been considered.
Many former patients alleged that he overstated the seriousness of their medical conditions while minimizing surgical risks.
Years of litigation produced civil verdicts totaling more than $297 million.
Patients argued that roughly $50 million should be paid under Durrani’s malpractice insurance coverage. MedPro argued that policy exclusions covering fraud, criminal conduct, and other intentional acts prevented payment.
Resulting litigation shows how a successful malpractice verdict can lead to another difficult legal fight when patients attempt to collect compensation.
Allegations Against Durrani
Patient allegations described a pattern in which serious spinal diagnoses allegedly became a tool for persuading people to accept costly surgery.
Court records included one especially disturbing example. Durrani allegedly told a patient that her “head could fall off” without an operation. Patients later argued that statements like this exaggerated medical risks and influenced decisions to consent to surgery.
Federal authorities later indicted Durrani on charges that included health-care fraud. While released on bond, he left the United States and traveled to Pakistan. Civil litigation continued without him. Juries ultimately awarded more than $297 million across cases involving his former patients. Collection proved far more difficult. Patients could obtain judgments on paper, yet securing actual payment became another legal problem. Durrani carried professional liability insurance through MedPro. Coverage generally applied to damages connected to medical services, but exclusions limited protection when damages resulted from criminal conduct, fraud, or other intentional wrongdoing. That distinction became central to patient efforts to collect their judgments. Patients argued that Durrani’s conduct involved more than intentional misrepresentation. Negligent medical treatment also caused injuries, they said, placing at least part of their damages within malpractice coverage. Collection disputes can add another layer of difficulty after a malpractice verdict. Firms such as Goldberg & Goldberg, LLC handle medical malpractice claims involving serious patient injuries, compensation disputes, and complex litigation against healthcare providers and insurers. Four former patients pursued MedPro directly for payment connected to their judgments. A much larger group also entered litigation. More than 250 additional former patients sued MedPro and one of its vice presidents over how the insurer handled the cases. Two different legal questions therefore emerged. One concerned policy coverage. Another concerned duties owed by an insurer to injured people who were not themselves policyholders. For patients, practical consequences were substantial. A jury award worth millions of dollars offers limited relief when the defendant cannot pay, particularly because medical malpractice payouts can depend on insurance limits, exclusions, and state law. Sixth Circuit judges upheld dismissal of claims against MedPro. Central reasoning concerned the relationship between Durrani’s fraudulent conduct and patient injuries. Policy exclusions applied when damages resulted directly out of intentional fraud and could not be separated into independently covered losses. Three cases created a particular problem because juries had not divided damages between negligence and fraud. Without separate damage amounts, judges concluded that losses tied to covered negligence could not be isolated reliably. Heather McCann’s verdict was different. Jurors assigned 50% of her injuries to negligence and 50% to fraudulent misrepresentation. Even with that division, unpaid damages at issue were associated with fraud, placing them outside MedPro’s payment obligations under the policy. Another part of the ruling addressed allegations that MedPro acted improperly toward patients. Ohio insurance law places an insurer’s good-faith duty toward its insured party. Durrani held the policy. Injured third-party patients did not. MedPro therefore did not owe those patients the same good-faith obligation owed to Durrani. Nothing in the ruling erased the underlying malpractice findings against him. Civil judgments still existed. Patient allegations were not rejected merely because MedPro prevailed in the insurance dispute. Decision-making centered on which losses fell inside insurance coverage and which losses were barred by exclusions tied to intentional misconduct. Distinction matters because malpractice cases involving fraud can produce an unusual outcome. Greater evidence of deliberate wrongdoing may strengthen liability claims against a doctor while simultaneously making insurance recovery harder. Durrani’s litigation is not the only recent case involving claims that patients received harmful or unnecessary operations after warning signs had surfaced. At Addenbrooke’s Hospital in Cambridge, an ongoing review involving suspended orthopedic surgeon Kuldeep Stohr examined 924 cases. Investigators also identified 32 missed opportunities to respond to concerns about Stohr’s practice. Concerns had reportedly surfaced years earlier, yet Stohr continued operating for roughly eight additional years. Lawyers representing affected families have called for a statutory public inquiry, with some clients alleging that they underwent major procedures they did not need. Questions surrounding delayed intervention closely resemble issues exposed in the Ian Paterson scandal. Paterson, a breast surgeon in England, subjected more than 1,000 patients to unnecessary or harmful operations over a 14-year period, according to findings released after an independent inquiry. Warnings about his conduct existed years before authorities finally stopped him. Investigators ultimately recommended reviewing all 11,000 patients Paterson had treated. Responsibility was not limited to one surgeon. Hospitals, health organizations, and regulators also faced criticism over failures that allowed unsafe practices to continue. Paterson later received a 20-year prison sentence. Around 750 victims received £37 million in compensation in 2017, yet financial compensation could not undo unnecessary surgery, long-term physical injuries, psychological harm, or years spent believing major medical procedures had been necessary. Durrani’s case demonstrates that winning a malpractice lawsuit does not automatically mean injured patients will collect the compensation juries awarded. More than $297 million in civil verdicts shows the scale of litigation surrounding his surgeries. Insurance exclusions, however, created another barrier for patients seeking payment, particularly where damages could not be separated between negligence and fraudulent conduct. Events elsewhere show how quickly suspected surgical misconduct can become an institutional problem. An Addenbrooke’s review identified 209 harmed patients among 924 cases examined. Paterson’s conduct involved more than 1,000 patients who underwent unnecessary or harmful operations, with investigators calling for review of 11,000 people he had treated. Numbers at that scale raise questions extending far outside individual operating rooms. Hospitals need strong patient safety systems capable of identifying unusual complication patterns and repeated patient complaints. Regulators need ways to act before years of concerns accumulate. Insurers need clear contractual rules governing cases involving both negligence and deliberate misconduct. Patients also need a realistic path to compensation after liability has been established. Cases involving Durrani, Stohr, and Paterson show how serious the consequences can become when concerns about surgical practices are not addressed quickly. More than $297 million in verdicts against Durrani, 209 harmed patients identified in the Addenbrooke’s review, and over 1,000 patients subjected to unnecessary or harmful operations by Paterson point to failures that can affect hundreds of families. Durrani’s insurance dispute also exposes another problem. Winning a malpractice case does not always mean compensation will follow, especially when insurers rely on exclusions tied to fraud or intentional misconduct.
Why MedPro Became Part of the Fight
What the Sixth Circuit Decided
Similar Cases Point to a Broader Patient-Safety Problem
Accountability Can Continue Long After a Verdict
FAQs
Summary
