Mike Wright, Allen King, and Mary Pat Grizzle secured a defense verdict on behalf of a urologist and his practice group in a jury trial for alleged medical malpractice. The plaintiff’s allegations arose out of a urological surgery and the scope of preoperative consent relative to surgery.
The defendant, a urologist, was charged with exceeding the scope of preoperative consent forms in performing a penile adhesion release procedure during a vasectomy. The plaintiff presented expert testimony from a urology specialist that the additional procedure performed during the course of the patient’s scheduled operation was outside the scope of the preoperative consent and that the additional procedure injured the patient.
The defense presented testimony from the defendant physician, as well as expert testimony from two other urology specialists, that all of the care was reasonable and appropriate; specifically, that the additional procedure performed by the defendant was medically necessary and within the broader scope of the preoperative consent. The defendant physician and defense experts also testified that there was no urological basis to explain the patient’s alleged injury.
After 4 days of trial, the jury returned its verdict in favor of the defendants.