A Kentucky man and his wife have sued the man’s doctor for amputating his penis without his authorization.
The doctor’s lawyer said the procedure was considered “medically necessary” and authorized by the patient because the patient gave the doctor permission to perform “any medical procedure deemed necessary”.
The 61-year-old man went in for a scheduled circumcision to treat inflammation. The lawsuit claims the doctor removed the man’s penis during the surgery without consulting the man or his wife.
The doctor’s lawyer said the penis amputation was authorized because the man had cancer and there was “no reasonable option other than to have the cancer removed”.
The man and his wife are seeking unspecified compensatory and punitive damages from the doctor, the doctor’s company and the anesthesiologist.
Related Articles:
While litigation has tied up some compensation settlements for the families of victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, others injured in the aftermath of the Twin Towers’ collapse are only now beginning to see the effects of the damage.
Workers who volunteered to search through the debris for trapped victims and help begin the cleanup process showed life-threatening respiratory illnesses after inhaling dust and fibers from Ground Zero.
A New York Times article from yesterday now notes the inflated rates of asthma appearing in individuals who were around the World Trade Center site when the buildings fell seven years ago. The study referred to in the article notes that 3,800 to 12,600 individuals have developed asthma since the attacks.
It’s just another reminder that though the nation has begun to put the trauma of seven years ago behind them, the sometimes deadly physical effects are in some ways only now appearing.
Mergers between pharmaceutical companies are common, but with such a volatile product to sell, they’re often complex and messy transactions. Product liability verdicts for drugs or medical devices can be massive, especially in states that haven’t caved in to medical malpractice caps.
When New Jersey drug giant Wyeth purchased American Cyanamid in 1994, they also take responsibility for American Cyanamid’s products as a subsidiary. This includes a recent jury award granting $8.5 million to a man who contracted polio after receiving a polio vaccine manufactured by American Cyanamid, a vaccine that was discontinued in 2000.
With its ocean of cash and top lawyers on retainer, Wyeth is in a better position that American Cyanamid was to fight the jury verdict, which is just what they’re doing. Though an FDA official testified in the previous trial that American Cyanamid did not perform sufficient tests on early vaccine samples, the FDA has now apparently reversed its position, saying that they were mistaken on what tests were required.
And now, a paralyzed Missouri man may face losing money for his medical care. Check back in the future for updates on this fascinating defective drugs court case.
The St. Louis Post-Dispatch, among other news outlets, is reporting that the state of Illinois will reconsider its state law providing limitations on the non-economic damages awarded as part of medical malpractice jury verdicts.
Though the state has twice struck down medical malpractice laws, most recently in 1997, state lawmakers wrote a new law in 2005 that caps non-economic damages (money for things like "pain and suffering") to $500,000 for doctors and $1 million for hospitals. However, Cook County Circuit Court Judge Diane Larsen ruled in favor of the mother of young Abigaile LeBron, who suffered extreme mental impairment and cerebral palsy as the result of injuries sustained during her birth, and in fact declared the medical malpractice caps unconstitutional, as statutory limits interfered with the duty of juries to award what they deemed appropriate verdicts.
This question of the separation of legislative and judicial powers will be at the heart of the Supreme Court’s decision this fall, and makes it fairly likely that the cap will be overturned once again, as the court previously ruled in favor of this separation both times it overturned malpractice caps.
There is no date set for the case to go to trial, but it could happen as early as next month, the Post-Dispatch reports.