Phillip Seaton, 61, and his wife are seeking unspecified compensation from Dr. John M. Patterson and the medical practice that performed the circumcision for “loss of service, love and affection.” The Seatons also are seeking unspecified punitive damages from Patterson and the medical practice, Commonwealth Urology.
A woman who answered the phone at Commonwealth Urology would not take a message for the doctor Thursday. But the Seaton’s attorney said the doctor’s post-surgical notes show the doctor thought he detected cancer and removed the penis. Attorney Kevin George said a later test did detect cancer.
The lawsuit filed earlier this month in state court claims Patterson removed Seaton’s penis without consulting either Phillip or Deborah Seaton, or giving them an opportunity to seek a second opinion.
The couple also sued the anesthesiologist, Dr. Oliver James of Shelbyville, claiming he used a general anesthesia even though Seaton asked that it not be administered.
There are certain cases in which no matter how good the medicine or the expert testimony, the odds of a positive defense outcome are slim. Focus group participants have consistently demonstrated that any case involving the loss of private part use--or especially the loss of private parts--results in a near-automatic desire to award money.
To that point, the article casually mentions:
The Seatons’ suit is similar to one in which an Indianapolis man was awarded more than $2.3 million in damages after he claimed his penis and left testicle were removed without his consent during surgery for an infection in 1997.
However, in this case cancer was confirmed in the penis, making the "medical emergency" argument at least plausible. However, the consent issue will likely be a significant obstacle in making arguments about medical necessity. Brutal.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment