If you or a family member lost a limb or suffered serious complications after an atherectomy, an atherectomy amputation lawsuit is a real avenue: patients have brought medical malpractice claims against physicians who performed the procedure without a valid clinical reason, and federal prosecutors, whistleblowers, and the HHS Office of Inspector General have separately built a record showing that unnecessary atherectomies are widespread, financially driven, and concentrated in a small group of high-volume physicians.
When an Atherectomy Crosses Into Malpractice
An atherectomy uses a laser or bladed catheter to shave plaque from the walls of blood vessels, usually in the legs. For a patient with severe blockages that threaten limb loss, it can be the right treatment. The problem is its use in patients with claudication, meaning leg pain when walking, which medical guidelines say should first be managed with exercise therapy and medication.
A ProPublica and CareSet analysis of Medicare claims from 2019 through 2022 found that nearly one in four patients who received a first-time atherectomy had been diagnosed only with claudication. That is roughly 30,000 patients who may not have needed the procedure.1ProPublica. Thousands of Patients May Be Undergoing Vascular Procedure Unnecessarily More than a decade of research supports the view that most people with peripheral artery disease have mild or no symptoms and do not need invasive treatment, and that even patients with more severe symptoms should not undergo repeated procedures in a short period.2The New York Times. Atherectomy Peripheral Artery Disease
The gap between appropriate treatment and overuse is where these cases live. Repeated atherectomies on a patient whose only symptom was mild walking pain, procedures performed on both legs when only one hurt, or falsified records used to justify treatment are the kinds of facts that have driven federal settlements and can support a private malpractice claim.
What a Malpractice Case Requires
To prevail on a medical malpractice claim, you must prove four things: the physician owed you a duty of care, the physician breached the accepted standard of care, that breach directly caused your injury, and you suffered actual harm.3National Center for Biotechnology Information. Medical Malpractice Elements The standard of care is generally established through expert testimony about what a reasonably qualified vascular specialist would have done given the same patient and symptoms. In an atherectomy case, that usually means an expert reviewing whether your symptoms and imaging warranted an invasive procedure at all, and whether the number of procedures performed on you was defensible.
The burden of proof is preponderance of the evidence: more likely than not that negligence occurred. Recoverable damages include medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, and disfigurement, which is significant in amputation cases. Some states cap noneconomic damages and some do not.4National Center for Biotechnology Information. Medical Malpractice Damages Where a breach is obvious, such as a procedure performed on the wrong limb, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur may reduce the need for expert testimony.3National Center for Biotechnology Information. Medical Malpractice Elements
Federal Cases Establishing the Pattern
Several federal cases have publicly documented the kind of conduct that also supports private malpractice claims.
Dr. Feliciano Serrano — $6.73 Million Settlement
In May 2026, the Department of Justice announced a $6.73 million settlement with Dr. Feliciano Serrano and the Serrano Kidney & Vascular Access Center in Huntington Park, California. The government alleged that from 2019 through 2024, Serrano performed medically unnecessary atherectomy and stent procedures on patients with only mild symptoms or minor arterial narrowing. One patient received roughly 16 atherectomies over four years; another received about 42 stents in a dialysis access segment.5U.S. Department of Justice. Vascular Practice and Physician Agree To Pay More Than $6.73M To Settle False Claims Act Allegations
The government also alleged that Serrano routinely told patients their legs would require amputation without the procedures, even though little actual amputation risk existed for mildly symptomatic peripheral artery disease. He allegedly operated on both legs when patients complained of pain in only one and falsified records to justify the treatments.6U.S. Department of Justice. Serrano Settlement Agreement CMS had suspended his Medicare payments in May 2025. The whistleblower firm that brought the qui tam case received roughly $976,000.5U.S. Department of Justice. Vascular Practice and Physician Agree To Pay More Than $6.73M To Settle False Claims Act Allegations
Dr. James McGuckin — Pending Litigation
In May 2023, the DOJ filed a False Claims Act suit against Dr. James McGuckin and the Philadelphia Vascular Institute in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, alleging he collected at least $6.5 million for hundreds of medically unnecessary vascular procedures between 2016 and 2019.7The Philadelphia Inquirer. James McGuckin Vascular False Claims U.S. Attorney Lawsuit Federal data show McGuckin received $17.2 million in Medicare atherectomy reimbursements over five years.1ProPublica. Thousands of Patients May Be Undergoing Vascular Procedure Unnecessarily A federal judge denied his motion to dismiss in March 2024, and the litigation is ongoing.
ev3 Inc. — $1.25 Million Settlement
An earlier case set the template. In 2015, the DOJ settled with ev3 Inc., formerly Fox Hollow Technologies, for $1.25 million after the company allegedly induced 12 hospitals across nine states to bill minimally invasive atherectomies performed with its Silver Hawk device as expensive inpatient admissions. A former Fox Hollow sales representative received $250,000 as the whistleblower.8U.S. Department of Justice. Minnesota-Based ev3 To Pay United States $1.25 Million To Settle False Claims Act Allegations
Cases Closest to an Amputation Injury
Dr. Jihad Mustapha
Dr. Jihad Mustapha, a vascular surgeon at Advanced Cardiac and Vascular Centers in Grand Rapids and Lansing, Michigan, has faced both regulatory action and malpractice scrutiny. An insurance company reported to state authorities that 45 patients lost limbs following treatment at his clinics over a four-year period.2The New York Times. Atherectomy Peripheral Artery Disease Physicians who treated his patients for complications filed complaints with Michigan’s licensing board, which issued a formal administrative complaint in September 2021 alleging negligence and incompetence based on expert review of eight patients, citing overtreatment, unnecessary vascular procedures, poor documentation, and off-label device use.9Michigan LARA. Administrative Complaint, Mustapha
Medtronic and the Kansas VA Hospital
Device manufacturers have also been sued. In 2017, Thomas Schroeder, a sales representative for a competing company, filed United States ex rel. Schroeder v. Medtronic, Inc., alleging that between 2011 and 2018, VA healthcare workers at the Robert J. Dole Veterans Affairs Medical Center in Wichita, Kansas received inducements including steakhouse dinners, Apple electronics, and NASCAR tickets in exchange for a Medtronic contract and for steering physicians to use Medtronic devices even when not medically indicated.10ProPublica. Medtronic Medical Device Kickbacks Lawsuit Kansas
Internal VA emails released in the case showed that leg amputations at the facility rose sixfold over five years, from about six in 2013 to 38 in 2018. The hospital’s internal review made no determination about whether the procedures caused that spike.10ProPublica. Medtronic Medical Device Kickbacks Lawsuit Kansas The suit alleges that the facility used as many as 17 Medtronic devices in a single procedure when one or two is typical.11Becker’s Hospital Review. Whistleblower Accuses Medtronic of Bribery Scheme at Kansas Hospital The DOJ declined to intervene, but the case remained active with Medtronic’s motion to dismiss partially denied. Medtronic has called the allegations false.12CNBC. Whistleblower Alleges Medtronic Engaged in Bribery Scheme
The OIG Findings and the Office-Based Lab Problem
Where your procedure was performed matters. By 2023, 75 percent of atherectomies were done in office-based labs, where clinical oversight is lighter than in hospitals.13HHS Office of Inspector General. Utilization Trends and Medicare Part B Billing for Office-Based Peripheral Vascular Procedures Raise Questions About Program Integrity Dr. William Schuyler Jones, a Duke Health vascular specialist, has said of the arrangement: “Unfortunately, no one’s looking, no one’s monitoring, and overuse is inevitable.”14Duke Health. Growth of Office-Based PAD Treatments Trigger Concerns
In May 2026, the HHS Office of Inspector General released a report on Medicare billing for office-based vascular procedures from 2019 through 2023. It flagged $105 million in 2023 payments alone as suspicious for medical unnecessity, about one-fifth of all such payments that year. Nearly 140 doctors were identified as having concerning billing patterns, with 26 physicians responsible for the majority of those claims.15ProPublica. Vascular Procedures Medicare Inspector General Report Those 26 outlier physicians each received an average of about $3 million in Medicare payments, treated more than four times as many Medicare patients as their peers, and performed double the average procedures per patient. About half practiced in California and Texas.16MedPage Today. Medicare Billing Vascular Procedures OIG Report The OIG referred these names to CMS for review; the report did not conclude that any specific physician had committed fraud.
Between 2017 and 2021, a core group of roughly 200 physicians performed nearly 200,000 atherectomy procedures and collected close to $1.5 billion in Medicare reimbursements.1ProPublica. Thousands of Patients May Be Undergoing Vascular Procedure Unnecessarily If your procedure was performed in an office-based lab by a very high-volume operator, the pattern regulators have documented is worth raising with a lawyer.
What the Medical Evidence Says
Atherectomy itself is not the target of these cases. A 2025 study in the Journal of Endovascular Therapy analyzing Vascular Quality Initiative data on below-the-knee peripheral artery disease found that patients who received atherectomy combined with balloon angioplasty had lower rates of major amputation and major adverse limb events during long-term follow-up compared to balloon angioplasty alone. The researchers concluded that atherectomy, when properly indicated, is a safe approach with higher technical success rates.17National Library of Medicine. Comparative Analysis of Mortality and Amputation Rates in Patients Undergoing Atherectomy for Infra-Popliteal Peripheral Arterial Disease
That is the line a lawsuit has to prove: atherectomy performed on a patient with severe, limb-threatening ischemia is consistent with clinical guidelines; performed repeatedly on a patient whose only symptom is mild walking pain, it is not. Whether you have a case turns on which side of that line your treatment falls on, which in turn requires your medical records, imaging, and an expert review of what your symptoms actually warranted.