"At trial, the urology expert testified that the defendant urologist failed to offer the patient alternative treatments before proceeding with the drastic option of removing the testicle," writes Dawn Collins, JD.
Dawn Collins, JD
The plaintiff claimed that the urologist should have performed TURP.
The urologist argued that he did obtain informed consent to the injection treatment, noting that the patient had signed a document that explained that scars were a possible outcome.
The physician argued that the migration of the mesh is a known risk of the procedure and the patient had given informed consent for the operation.
In this "Malpractice Consult" column, Dawn Collins, JD, also discusses cases involving penile pain following cystoscopy, alleged failure to diagnose kidney obstruction, and death follow stent placement.
In this case, the man currently has no evidence of metastatic disease or other long-term injury from his claimed negligence that the physicians allowed the cancer to become extracapsular during the 6 months of following his PSA levels.
In the lawsuit, the urologist contended the circumcision was properly performed and the patient’s curvature was due to a previously asymptomatic Peyronie’s condition, which was exacerbated after the circumcision procedure.