A jury has ruled in favor of former Portland Timbers goalkeeper Jake Gleeson in his medical malpractice lawsuit against team doctor, Dr. Richard H. Edelson, awarding the former New Zealand international over $20 million.

Gleeson, 34, had undergone surgery back in 2018 to treat stress fractures in both legs, but both legs became infected, and it was alleged that the plates inserted into Gleeson's legs hadn't been properly sterilized. Gleeson was forced to undergo 14 total surgeries that ended his career. He is now unable to walk without pain.

"It's been a very hard six-and-a-half years, some weeks are better than others, some days are better than others," Gleeson said over a Zoom call after the verdict. "But it's been very difficult."

He added, "I think now moving forward from this case, I just want to be an advocate that when you're put under anesthesia from a doctor, you expect them to follow these guidelines and these policies. It doesn't matter if you're an MLS player, it doesn't matter if you're an NFL player, it doesn't matter if you work a desk job. When you sign that consent form, you're signing that they're going to do everything in their power to keep you safe. This doctor did not do that."

John Pollino, Edelson's attorney, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment or if he planned to appeal.

The verdict, delivered in Oregon Circuit Court for Multnomah County, is the culmination of a four-and-a-half-year legal process that saw Gleeson settle his claims with another doctor, Dr. Jonathan Greenleaf, as well as the facility where the surgery was performed, Oregon Outpatient Surgery Center. The suit was dismissed against another defendant, Oregon Sports Medicine Associates. The Timbers were never named in the suit.

The three-week trial witnessed emotional testimony from Gleeson as he recounted what had transpired, including both physical and mental trauma he endured. Former teammates Nat Borchers, Jack Jewsbury and Darlington Nagbe all testified on Gleeson's behalf. Former Timbers GM Gavin Wilkinson was a defense witness.

The defense maintained that the sterilization technique used, called Immediate-Use Steam Sterilization (IUSS), was sufficient, that infection is a common risk of surgery, and that Gleeson's complications were no fault of Edelson's.

"This has been something I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy, not that I have too many of those," said Gleeson.

"It's been a lot of physical pain. It's been a lot of emotional pain, and those have come in different stages. You have surgeries, you feel better, then you have other surgeries. I would say that this has been something that's quite consumed my life for the last six and a half years since that initial surgery. I left the training field one day, not knowing that that would be the last time I would ever be a professional soccer player."

The jury found in favor of Gleeson on all four questions of negligence by Dr. Edelson and his use of IUSS, with the jury voting 12-0 on two of the questions, and 11-1 on the other two. In terms of damages, the jury awarded Gleeson $413,533.18 for past medical expenses with a 12-0 vote, 387,500 for future medical expenses with an 11-1 vote, $2 million for past lost wages with a 12-0 vote, $2.145 million for future impaired earning capacity with a 9-3 vote, and $15.675 million for non-economic damages with a 12-0 vote.

After the verdict was read, the defense noted that the award for future medical expenses is capped at $200,000. While an appeal seems likely, for now, the bulk of the damages award remains intact, and even with that reduction totals $20.4 million.

In the original court filing, a copy of which has been obtained by ESPN, the suit alleged in part that the defendants were negligent in that the plates weren't properly sterilized prior to surgery. It also contended that there was a "breach of sterility" at Oregon Outpatient Surgery Center that wasn't disclosed to Gleeson. It also alleged that the doctors selected "aggressive and risky procedures" for Gleeson without trying more conservative therapies first. Lastly, it asserted that there was "no clear orthopedic necessity to implant the devices."