Man Sues over Cancer Misdiagnosis and Unneeded Testicle Removal
Medical malpractice cases are some of the most devastating, both personally and physically; in short, because the body is such a delicate organism, if a mistake is made, it's impossible to know the extent of the damage caused. Effects from any mistake can be permanent, and some may not even show up for years after the incident.
Some are more obvious and cut to the heart of an emotionally and psychologically sensitive issue. Darrie Eason, a Long Island, New York woman, received an unneeded mastectomy to remove one breast after doctors told her she had breast cancer, only to find out that her biopsy was mislabeled and she did not have cancer at all. She sued, but no amount of money could replace the missing part of her body.
A new incident is eerily similar, though it involves a man. Stephen Kosti of Middletown, Ohio was partially castrated during a medical procedure in 2007. He received a second opinion that opposed the advice of his doctor, Dr. Gary Kirsh of Tri-State Urological Services in Norwood, Ohio. However, it was too late.
In May 2007, Kosti sought medical advice after feeling pain in his groin. Dr. Kirsh determined that Kosti was suffering from hydrocele, a condition in which watery fluid accumulates in the scrotum. Kosti was admitted to a hospital shortly thereafter for more exploratory procedures, when Kirsh informed him of the chance of cancer.
According to Kosti's account of the incident, Dr. Kirsh went as far as to claim that cancerous cells in his scrotum could prevent Kosti from living even as long as six months. Kirsh removed Kosti's right testicle to prevent the spread of the cancer.
Kosti then received an investigation by an oncologist and a PET scan to discover the extent to which his cells were still cancerous, which determined that Kirsh's opinion was indeed a misdiagnosis, that Kosti in fact had no cancer.
According to local news reports, Kosti filed the lawsuit pro se, or without an injury lawyer. The personal injury lawsuit alleges medical malpractice, lack of informed consent and battery, and seeks unspecified damages. Kosti further claims compensation for loss of past and future wages, additional medical expenses, pain and suffering, mental anguish, mental and emotional damage, physical pain, loss of earning potential and loss of enjoyment of life.
Kosti requests a jury trial, and given the nature of the misdiagnosis and the severity of the error, it's hard to see how a jury could not find Kosti's story sympathetic. Hopefully, Kosti will be able to find at least some peace of mind in the face of this horrible medical tragedy.