It is the doctor's moral and ethical duty to provide you with full and honest disclosure of the facts prior to surgery. The whole doctrine of informed consent is to prevent patients from having to realize they made a mistake in hindsight. You shouldn't have had to find out from a former patient's wife that the surgery would cause drenching sweating on your back. It was Garza's job to do that. He completely lied to you regarding the supposed reversibility. Anyone who goes through medical school knows that can't crush a nerve with a metal clamp, remove it later and have the nerve return to normal functioning.
Although it is not possible to predict exactly what will occur in each individual case, there is nearly 100 years of published scientific and medical research available on the effects of sympathectomy. That research paints a very different picture of the effects of this surgery than the one presented to patients considering this surgery. That's the issue. Generally, they lie and tell patients that CS is inconsequential in all but a tiny fraction of cases and simply fail to disclose a huge number of verified adverse effects of the surgery. They take advantage of the patient's ignorance on medical matter. It's unethical and would be criminal in a just society.
In short, you do have a way of knowing what will likely occur as a result of the surgery before you have it done. All the information necessary to make an informed decision exists. It's just not getting to patients.
http://etsandreversals.yuku.com/reply/22927/Would-you-do-it-again#reply-22927
