After less than 20 minutes, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant urologist and his employer.
Plaintiff, 59, was a minister. He was diagnosed with prostate cancer. Plaintiff’s treating urologist discussed treatment options with the patient, who opted to explore surgical treatment. He was referred to the defendant urologist, who was experienced in performing robotic-assisted laparoscopic prostatectomies.
Plaintiff underwent such an operation in January 2013. During surgery, the defendant urologist recognized and repaired a bowel perforation likely caused by the initial trocar insertion. After the initial surgery, the defendant urologist disclosed the bowel injury to plaintiff and his family. He kept the patient in the hospital until post-operative day three for careful monitoring. As of the date of discharge, the patient was feeling well and was discharged home.
On the sixth post-operative day, the patient returned to the emergency room. A CT scan confirmed a bowel leak, and plaintiff underwent repair surgery performed by a general surgeon in consultation with the defendant urologist.
In discovery and at trial, plaintiff repeatedly denied the defendant urologist (or any physician) had ever advised him of the risks of surgery and specifically the risk of bowel injury. But the jury was presented with medical records and documenting his specific risk factors and informed consent discussions.
After less than 20 minutes, the jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant urologist and his employer.
Defense team:
