The Law Offices of Dr. Michael M. Wilson M.D., J.D. Click here to connect to our office instantly
Understand the breakdown of a medical malpractice claim Learn how having an attorney who is also a physician can make all the difference Fill out our free consultation form and get started today
Washington DC Medical Malpractice Lawyer
Follow us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Follow us on LinkedIn
Subscribe to our blog feed
 Follow us on Google Plus
Medical Malpractice Blog
Areas of Practice
Bile Duct Injuries
Birth Injuries
Hospital & Doctor Negligence
Surgical Errors
Medication Errors
Diagnosis Errors
Spinal Cord Injuries
Contact Us

Seattle Jury Awards $8.5 Million After Abdominal Surgery Leaves Man with Disfigured Penis

malpractice A Seattle man and his wife were awarded $8.5 million after abdominal surgery resulted in complications that required months of penis reconstruction. The verdict, delivered earlier this month in King County Superior Court, found that Virginia Mason Medical Center was negligent in performing surgery and causing injury, and awarded the man $6 million in compensation and his wife $2.5 million.

According to court documents, the victim in this case was diagnosed with an abdominal tumor and consented to a procedure that would involve the insertion of a stent into the tube which carries urine to the bladder from the kidney. The victim and his wife, an anesthesiologist, stated that they verbally stated and wrote on a consent form that they wanted the head of the medical center’s urology department to perform the procedure.

During his recovery, the victim began to experience complications, including overflow incontinence and a damaged urethra which required an additional surgery to graft skin from his cheek onto his penis and rebuild the urethra. The man experienced months of pain and severe limitations that prevented him from working, engaging in physical activity, having sex, and coaching his children’s sports teams. It also affected his relationship with his wife.

It was eventually discovered that the doctor whom the couple had requested to perform the surgery did not actually perform the procedure. Instead, it was performed by a fellow who was training in female pelvic-floor surgery. The couple also claimed that the fellow who performed the procedure met them on the morning of surgery to have them sign the consent form authorizing the urology department head to perform the procedure. When presented in court, the consent form had both doctor’s names authorized. The couple alleged that the second doctor’s name was added later.

When instructing the jury, the Judge called attention to language used in the consent form, and specifically the use of the words “and” rather than “or.” This, the judge noted, would allow the primary doctor to have another physician assist them during the procedure, but would not allow them to have another physician perform the procedure in their absence. Although the jury rejected the victims’ claims that medical battery occurred, which requires proof of intentional harm, they sided with the plaintiffs regarding the hospital’s negligence.

The ruling provides compensation for the man’s physical and emotional damages, as well as damages suffered by his wife as a result of his injury. It could also have big implications in cases involving patients who are injured by doctors they did not authorize to perform a procedure and draw further attention to how fellows in health care facilities should be overseen by primary doctors during surgery.