Overview

Brockman (a/k/a Chloe Cole) v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals is a medical malpractice lawsuit filed on 22 February 2023 in San Joaquin County Superior Court, California (case no. STK-CV-UMM-2023-0001612). Chloe Cole, a detransitioned woman who sues under her legal surname Brockman, alleges that Kaiser Permanente entities and clinicians placed her on puberty blockers and testosterone at 13 and arranged a double mastectomy at 15 without adequate psychological assessment or informed consent. The defendants deny wrongdoing and say that Cole and her parents consented after consulting a multidisciplinary team.

Status as of October 2026: pending. Kaiser's attempt to move the case into private arbitration failed in the trial court (April 2024) and on appeal (19 September 2025, in a published opinion). A jury trial is scheduled for 5 April 2027. No court has ruled on the merits, and every claim below is an allegation unless stated otherwise.

Background

This section relies only on what Cole and her lawyers have made public, through her court filings, press conferences, interviews and testimony to lawmakers.

What the filings say. According to the Court of Appeal's summary of the operative complaint, Cole was born in 2004 and as a child and adolescent had "various mental health issues", including social anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia, gender confusion and "autism spectrum symptoms" (Brockman v. Kaiser 2025). Her mother worked for Kaiser as a nurse, and Cole was insured as a dependent on her mother's Kaiser plans from 2005 to 2023. The complaint alleges that "after being exposed for hours at a time to online transgender influencers, Chloe developed the erroneous idea that she was a boy", and that the defendants "immediately affirmed Chloe in her self-diagnosed gender dysphoria" (UniCourt case summary).

The treatment timeline, as alleged. Her pre-suit notice letter states that she received a first dose of the puberty blocker Lupron Depot on 10 January 2018, and that a consent form for testosterone was signed on 12 February 2018, with no separate consent form for the off-label use of Lupron (use for a purpose the drug is not approved for) (LiMandri & Jonna 2022). She had a double mastectomy at 15. The complaint states that her gender dysphoria "was not persistent and resolved when she was close to reaching adulthood," and that she then detransitioned (Brockman v. Kaiser 2025).

Inconsistent ages across sources. Reported ages differ. The San Francisco Chronicle reported that the complaint says she was diagnosed with gender dysphoria at 9 and detransitioned at 17 (SF Chronicle 2023). In congressional testimony she said the dysphoria began at 12 (Do No Harm 2023). Other outlets give 16 as her age at detransition (The Post Millennial 2024). Her lawyers variously describe the treatment window as ages 13–16 and 13–17.

Her public statements about the case. Cole has been a prominent campaigner against medical transition for minors. She is a senior fellow at Do No Harm, an advocacy group, and has testified in support of state bans. Those statements matter here only because they are the plaintiff's own account of the events at issue. At a hearing of the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government on 27 July 2023, she said:

The gender specialist I was taken to see told my parents that I needed to be put on puberty blocking drugs right away. They asked my parents a simple question: "Would you rather have a dead daughter, or a living transgender son?" — Chloe Cole, testimony to the House Judiciary Subcommittee, 27 July 2023 (Do No Harm 2023, advocacy group publishing her remarks)

In the same testimony she said she was not suicidal before treatment but became suicidal at 16, after surgery. She also described lasting joint pain, sexual dysfunction and complications at her nipple graft sites. Her lawyers list her claimed injuries as joint pain, impaired bone density, recurrent urinary tract infections and lasting nerve damage from the mastectomy (Center for American Liberty, plaintiff's counsel). These are the plaintiff's claims. The defendants have not admitted them and no court has tested them.

The parties

Plaintiff: Chloe E. Brockman, also known as Chloe Cole. Her lawyers are the Dhillon Law Group (San Francisco), LiMandri & Jonna LLP (Rancho Santa Fe) and the Center for American Liberty (CAL), a conservative non-profit litigation group. Harmeet Dhillon signed the original complaint and was later appointed Assistant US Attorney General for Civil Rights (Legal Newsline 2025).

Defendants: The original complaint named "two doctors, a psychologist, Kaiser Hospitals, and the Medical Group." A first amended complaint filed in July 2023 added two more psychologists (Brockman v. Kaiser 2025). The court docket lists the individual defendants as Lisa Kristine Taylor, M.D.; Hop Nguyen Le, M.D.; Susanne E. Watson, Ph.D.; Lilit Asulyan, Psy.D.; and Ester Baldwin, LCSW (licensed clinical social worker), Ph.D. The entity defendants are Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and The Permanente Medical Group (Trellis docket). The November 2022 notice letter was also addressed to Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, and some early press reports list it as a defendant. The Court of Appeal, however, describes the entity defendants as the hospitals and the Medical Group only.

The claims

The full complaint was not available to us, so this summary relies on the Court of Appeal's description of the operative complaint, published excerpts and counsel's filings. UniCourt's case summary says the original complaint pleaded two claims for relief, including medical negligence. We could not verify how each cause of action was labelled.

Negligent evaluation and treatment

The complaint alleges that the clinicians "failed to meet the standard of care as to their evaluation, diagnosis, and treatment" (Brockman v. Kaiser 2025). The specific allegations are:

• No adequate assessment. According to the complaint, the defendants "should have performed an extended period of assessment and treatment comprising at least twelve weekly, one-hour sessions" but instead "handed her the prescription pad" (UniCourt).
• Co-occurring conditions ignored. The defendants allegedly did not evaluate or treat her other conditions, including anxiety, depression, body dysmorphia and autism-spectrum symptoms.
• Experimental, off-label treatment. The pre-suit letter calls the course of treatment "inadequately studied, off-label, high risk" and "medical experimentation" (LiMandri & Jonna 2022). See puberty blockers and mastectomy for what is known about these interventions.

Lack of informed consent

The complaint also alleges a separate failure to obtain informed consent. Her lawyers rely on California's leading consent case, Cobbs v. Grant (1972) (Center for American Liberty). According to the filings:

• Neither Cole nor her parents were told that childhood gender dysphoria often resolves by adulthood. They were also not told about alternatives such as "monitoring Chloe's psychological condition and/or receiving non-invasive psychological or psychiatric counseling" (LiMandri & Jonna 2022).
• The consent forms allegedly "contained no specific information regarding the actual risks of the testosterone and puberty blockers."
• The complaint argues that informed consent for this kind of treatment "requires regular therapy sessions over an extended period of time," which it says did not happen.

These arguments overlap with the wider critique of informed consent in gender medicine.

Misrepresentation of suicide risk (fraud, oppression, malice)

The most serious allegation is that clinicians coerced the family. The complaint alleges they gave "incorrect/false information about suicide risk" and reinforced Cole's "erroneous belief that gender transition services would resolve her mental health issues." It characterises this as "fraudulent, oppressive, and malicious conduct" (Brockman v. Kaiser 2025). The filings say her parents were asked whether they "would rather have a dead daughter or a live son." The lawsuit alleges that "this unethical form of coercion reflects a lack of understanding of suicide risk, or a deliberate decision to misrepresent suicide risk" (Legal Reader 2023). The notice letter adds that she was "not deemed to have any suicide risk prior to beginning puberty blockers." The evidence behind this argument is discussed on suicide and transition.

Institutional liability

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals and The Permanente Medical Group are accused of failing to supervise and train the clinicians, failing to "adequately select, maintain, and ensure the competence" of providers, and failing to adopt appropriate policies and procedures (Brockman v. Kaiser 2025, fn. 5).

Damages sought

The notice letter said Cole would seek special damages (measurable financial losses) and general damages (such as pain and suffering) up to the cap set by California's Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act (MICRA), which limits non-economic damages in malpractice cases, against each provider and each institution, plus punitive damages for "malice," "oppression" and "fraud." California law does not allow a plaintiff to plead punitive damages against a healthcare provider without the court's permission (Code Civ. Proc. § 425.13). On 18–19 April 2024 her lawyers therefore filed a motion for leave to add a punitive-damages claim. It was supported by declarations from Cole, her mother and Robin Dea, M.D., a former Kaiser psychiatry chief whom counsel describe as having helped build Kaiser's adult transgender programme (Center for American Liberty 2024, plaintiff's counsel). Dea's declaration, as quoted by counsel, says that "there was no gender evaluation" when Cole first presented in June 2017.

Defendants' position

Kaiser has not commented publicly on the specific facts, citing patient privacy (CBN News, republished by Choice Illusion California). What is on record is summarised below.

• Public statement (February 2023). Kaiser said it "provides patient-centered gender-affirming care that is consistent with the standards of medical care and excellence". It said that for adolescents "a multidisciplinary team of physicians and other experienced professionals" provide information and counselling, and that "the care decisions always rest with the patient and their parents" (KATV / The National Desk 2023; Los Angeles Times 2023).
• Answer to the complaint (September 2023). Assigned Media, a trans-focused outlet, reported on the answer. In it Kaiser contends the complaint "fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action". It also contends that Cole and her parents consented after consulting "a multidisciplinary team of trained and licensed medical professionals", that Cole "waived any right to recover damages" through that consent, and that Kaiser "complied with all applicable regulations, code provisions, laws, and standards of care" (Assigned Media 2023).
• Arbitration (October 2023 – September 2025). The defendants petitioned to compel arbitration under clauses in the health plans that covered Cole as her mother's dependent. They relied on a California Nurses Association union plan for 2017–2020 and a Kaiser self-funded employee plan from 2020. They also argued that ERISA (the Employee Retirement Income Security Act), the federal law governing employee benefit plans, pre-empted California's arbitration-disclosure rule (Brockman v. Kaiser 2025).
• Opposition to discovery. Assigned Media reported that Kaiser resisted 121 special interrogatories (written questions a party must answer under oath) as "vague and irrelevant" (Assigned Media 2024).

We found no public filing from the defendants responding to the punitive-damages motion.

Procedural history

Outcome and current status

As of 13 October 2026 the case is pending in pretrial proceedings. The trial is set for 5 April 2027. We found no reported ruling on the punitive-damages motion, no summary-judgment ruling and no settlement. A trial date can still move, and the case could still settle or be narrowed by pretrial motions before a jury hears it.

What the arbitration ruling did and did not decide

The appellate ruling is about contract law only. It does not decide whether Cole's care was negligent. The trial court found that Kaiser had relied on enrollment forms her mother signed in 2004 and 2005. Those forms referred to arbitration terms in force at the time, but Kaiser was trying to enforce later and different provisions from 2017–2020. The court also found that the arbitration clause for the 2020 self-funded plan was in a "Benefits Booklet" that the enrollment form did not reference.

The Court of Appeal agreed. It held that a party seeking arbitration "must establish the precise arbitration provision the parties incorporated into their agreement." It added that Kaiser "did not produce any arbitration agreement containing the signature of plaintiff's mother." Kaiser's new argument on appeal, that union membership and acceptance of benefits bound Cole, was treated as forfeited because it had not been raised properly in the trial court (Brockman v. Kaiser 2025).

Significance

Open court instead of arbitration. Cole's case went differently from other suits against Kaiser. Assigned Media reported that arbitration was granted in two other detransitioner suits against Kaiser, those of Kayla Lovdahl (Layla Jane) and Richard Anumene (Assigned Media 2024). Lovdahl's claim later ended in arbitration on time-limit grounds (see the lawsuits hub). Arbitration is private. A jury trial means the evidence about how Cole was assessed and consented, including internal Kaiser practices, is likely to be aired in public. Because the Court of Appeal certified its opinion for publication, it can be cited as precedent on the burden Kaiser and similar plans must meet to enforce arbitration against members who are dependants.

Limitation periods. California generally requires medical negligence claims to be filed within three years of the injury or one year after the plaintiff discovers it, whichever comes first. Serving a 90-day notice of intent can extend that deadline (Code Civ. Proc. §§ 340.5, 364). We found no reported ruling on a limitation defence in Cole's case. The timing problem that ended Lovdahl's claim shows how important filing dates are for people who were treated as minors.

Policy context. Cole's case is the most publicised detransitioner suit in the US. A federal bill named after her, the "Chloe Cole Act", advanced from the House Judiciary Committee (Rep. Onder press release). In July 2025 Kaiser paused gender surgeries for patients under 19, effective 29 August 2025. It cited the federal "legal and regulatory environment," not this lawsuit, and said all other gender care remained available (SF Chronicle 2025; ABC10 2025). State Senator Scott Wiener called the pause "straight-up denial of care."

Reactions from both sides.

• Supporters. Her counsel call the case "the tip of the spear for this type of litigation" (Fox News via WFMD 2026). Independent Women, an advocacy group, presented the trial date as part of a wave following the 2026 Fox Varian verdict (IWFeatures 2026).
• Critics. Los Angeles Times columnist Michael Hiltzik called the suit "a front for the conservative war on LGBTQ rights" and said the complaint was "32 pages of pure accusations." He also argued that it misdescribed the closure of the Johns Hopkins clinic, the Tavistock closure and the conclusions of a 2011 Swedish cohort study (Los Angeles Times 2023). Assigned Media criticised coverage that reported the complaint at length but ignored Kaiser's answer.

Both criticisms of the record are fair as far as they go: the complaint is one side's account, and the answer is the other side's. The jury will decide on evidence about this patient's care, not on the wider debate. For the debate itself, see evidence reviews.

Backlash. Cole has faced protests and online hostility since going public (see backlash against detransitioners). Her lawyers describe her as "a national advocate" against these treatments for minors, and critics such as Hiltzik point to her campaigning as context for judging the suit. A court will judge her claims on the medical record, whatever her public profile.

What detransitioners say about the case

Discussion on r/detrans of Cole's suit is mostly brief. Some see it as a model for their own claims, and some note that her lawyers have looked for other Kaiser patients:

Chloe is a very vocal and high profile detrans and possibly the best chance at a law being passed against child transition. Anyone interested and willing should definitely share their story. —Standard-Carpet4038, desisted male

The central allegation, that parents were asked to choose between a "dead daughter" and a "live son", is familiar to many commenters. Several describe hearing the same line in their own clinics:

My mom got asked if she wants a dead daughter or a living son when she was with me at the doctor's appointment (who signed my approval). I hate this phrase, it's just manipulation. They intimidated my mother that I would kill myself, and they made ME think that I would definitely kill myself if I didn't get surgery and hormones. —thistle_ev, detrans female

I was in the room when my endocrinologist said to my parents "would you rather an alive daughter or dead son." It's such a dangerous statement, especially in front of the child. —Even_Discipline_7474, socially trans, regrets entire transition

This sort of rhetoric completely weaponises the care and love that parents have for their children. It also weaponises any anxieties or mental illnesses that the parents may have. —Hedera_Thorn, detrans male

These accounts do not prove what was said in Cole's case. They do show why the suicide-risk allegation strikes a chord in the community and why it may be central at trial.

Not everyone backs suing clinicians, or Cole's political alliances. One commenter on another detransitioner's lawsuit argued for personal responsibility:

The exact grounds for refusing to sterilize women is "what if they regret it and sue us?" so I'm uncomfortable with the precedent this is setting. Grown adults can make their own choices about their bodies. —lowrcase, desisted female

That objection concerns adults. Cole's claim rests on treatment she received at 13 to 15. Others admire her courage but are uneasy about who she campaigns alongside:

I also agree that Chloe is brave for speaking her truth in the midst of constant hate and threats, but her collaborations with far-right politicians (often extremely homophobic and extremely religious far-right politicians) frustrate me, because my homosexuality and religious trauma were huge influences in my transition. —bewildered_tourettic, detrans female

Another commenter explained why public detransitioners often end up on conservative platforms:

Conservative detrans people get a voice because conservative media is willing to give them one... when I try to speak to other left leaning people about detransition, I get shut down HARD. —Illustrious_Peak7985, detrans female

Related pages

• Detransitioner lawsuits: cases, claims and outcomes
• Mastectomy and top surgery regret
• Puberty blockers
• Informed consent critique
• Suicide and transition
• Transition regret
• Backlash against detransitioners
• Detransition support directory and video archive

References

• California Court of Appeal, Third District (2025). Brockman v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, No. C101451, filed 19 September 2025, certified for publication. opinion (PDF), Justia.
• San Joaquin County Superior Court. Chloe E. Brockman a/k/a Chloe Cole vs Kaiser Foundation Hospitals, Inc., et al., STK-CV-UMM-2023-0001612 (docket). Trellis, UniCourt case summary.
• LiMandri & Jonna LLP (2022). Notice of intent to sue, Cole v. Taylor et al., 9 November 2022 (as filed with the Vermont House Judiciary Committee). source.
• Center for American Liberty (plaintiff's counsel). Chloe Cole v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (case page). source.
• Center for American Liberty (plaintiff's counsel) (2024). Chloe Cole Pursues Punitive Damages in Medical Malpractice Lawsuit. source.
• Center for American Liberty (plaintiff's counsel) (2026). Chloe Cole's Trial Set for April 5, 2027. source.
• Legal Newsline / Northern California Record (2025). Woman OK to sue Kaiser over gender transition deception. source.
• San Francisco Chronicle (2023). Conservative group sues Kaiser Permanente over transgender care. source.
• San Francisco Chronicle (2025). Kaiser Permanente to pause gender-affirming surgeries for patients under age 19. source.
• ABC10 (2025). Kaiser Permanente to pause gender-affirming surgeries for youth under 19 (includes Kaiser's full statement). source.
• Hiltzik, M. (2023). A transgender patient's lawsuit against Kaiser is a front for the conservative war on LGBTQ rights (opinion column). Los Angeles Times. source.
• The National Desk / KATV (2023). 'Detransitioner' sues doctors after being given irreversible gender treatments as child (includes Kaiser statement). source.
• Assigned Media (trans-focused outlet) (2023). Dozens of Stories Covered a Detransitioner Lawsuit. The Response Hasn't Been Covered At All. source.
• Assigned Media (trans-focused outlet) (2024). What's Up With Chloe Cole's Lawsuit? source.
• The Post Millennial (2024). Judge rules detransitioner Chloe Cole's malpractice suit against Kaiser Permanente can move forward to discovery. source.
• Legal Reader (2023). "Detransitioner" Chloe Cole Files Lawsuit Against Kaiser Hospitals. source.
• Do No Harm (advocacy group) (2023). Do No Harm Senior Fellow Chloe Cole Testifies Before Congress (full remarks). source.
• Fox News, via WFMD (2026). Chloe Cole reveals intense pressure to transition as a minor. source.
• Independent Women / IWFeatures (advocacy group) (2026). What Chloe Cole's Lawsuit Against Her Former Doctors Means for America. source.
• CBN News, republished by Choice Illusion California. Chloe Cole (includes Kaiser's privacy statement). source.
• Office of Rep. Bob Onder. Chloe Cole Act Advances Out of House Judiciary Committee. source.
• California Code of Civil Procedure §§ 340.5, 364, 425.13. § 340.5, § 425.13.