A patient said she “felt violated” after a surgeon branded his initials on her liver.

Simon Bramhall admitted two counts of assault by beating at Birmingham Crown Court on Wednesday, but pleaded not guilty to alternative charges of assault occasioning actual bodily harm.

The 53-year-old performed the liver transplants at Queen Elizabeth hospital in August 2013 and used an ‘argon beam coagulator’ – an instrument designed to seal bleeding blood vessels – to sear his initials ‘SB’ into the organ.

Simon Bramhall
Simon Bramhall

West Midlands Police said the patient, although fully recovered, “felt violated by the surgeon’s actions".

A spokesman said: “I hope his admission of guilt goes some way to assist her recovery.”

Bramhall, from Brooklands Lane in Redditch, will be sentenced at Birmingham Crown Court on January 12.

Simon Bramhall, 53, a specialist surgeon accused of branding his initials into a patient's liver

West Midlands Police brought the landmark assault charges against the surgeon - that set a legal precedent in criminal law.

The marking was discovered by another surgeon who performed a second transplant after the initial one failed.

The court heard there was nothing to suggest the failure of the liver was due to the ‘initialling’ and that the liver would, in time, regenerate and leave no permanent marking.

However, the procedure was deemed highly unethical.

The General Medical Council were informed and it came to light that an anaesthetist had witnessed Bramhall perform the same act on a different patient’s liver in February 2013.

Both patients made a full recovery from their transplants.

Simon Bramhall is a surgeon based at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham
Simon Bramhall is a surgeon based at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham

West Midlands Police Detective Constable Paul Read, from Force CID, said: “This was a totally unnecessary action by a renowned surgeon who had conducted over 350 liver transplants since becoming a consultant on the liver unit in 2002.

“He cannot offer any explanation for his actions. The court heard that his actions were an arrogant disregard for the dignity and feelings of the unconscious patient… and that it was an abuse of position and patient trust to use the coagulator in the way he did.

“Although he did not lose his job, he resigned as he felt is position had become untenable.”