Expert Witness Case #34
A 42-year-old man presented to a urologist to undergo a vasectomy. During the procedure, his left testicle became very painful. He was told to take analgesics and the pain would improve. The pain continued to worsen and 3 days later he went to an ED, where he was found to have an ischemic testicle.
He was then taken to the OR by the urologist on call, where it was discovered that the testicular artery had been ligated, not the vas deferens. The patient’s left testicle was removed.
Join 5,200+ doctors and lawyers.
Subscribers from all over the US are improving their practice by reviewing cases.
The patient and his wife sued the urologist. The expert witness opinion is below:
The case was decided at a bench trial, wherein the judge decides the outcome as opposed to a jury. The urologist was found negligent and the following damages were awarded. The second plaintiff is the patient’s wife.
The defendant appealed the decision.
The appellate court affirmed the decision.
The plaintiffs disclosed some of their costs. The item of interest to readers will be the amount paid to their expert witness for his attendance at trial:
MedMalReviewer Opinion:
Most lawsuits related to testicular injury involve a loss of fertility as the primary harm suffered by the patient. This case is interesting because the entire point of the vasectomy is the patient’s desire for infertility. The damages must be based on pain/suffering related to the mistake, the orchiectomy, and the cosmetic/confidence issue related to only having one testicle.
The expert witness was paid $9,000 to show up to court and testify. This does not include the fee to review the case and write the initial expert witness report. He likely made $15,000+ for what is essentially a slam dunk case with relatively little nuance.
Most medical malpractice cases end in a confidential settlement, and those that actually go to trial rarely are decided in the plaintiff’s favor. This is a unique exception.
If you are accused of medical malpractice, would you rather have a trial decided by 12 jurors or a single judge?
Leave a comment or reply to this email and I’ll tabulate the responses.
Specialties: Radiology, Cardiology
Synopsis: 76-year-old man dies of thoracic aortic aneurysm. Review of his records show multiple missed opportunities over the preceding 10 years to prevent his death.
Specialties: IM Hospitalist, Vascular Surgery
Synopsis: A 60-year-old woman with DKA develops leg pain after being admitted. Multiple exams document pain and poor blood flow. Patient’s leg is amputated after delayed diagnosis.
Specialties: Critical Care, Hematology
Synopsis: A 37-year-old man with sickle cell disease presents with severe chest pain and hypoxia. Hematology consultant feels it is not acute chest syndrome and copy/pastes Up-To-Date as his consult note. Patient dies.
I am curious to know the defense theory- what, if any, defense was offered? Why go to trial at all. Seems like it's just an argument over the cosmetic value of a testicle replacement. The replacement cost lists at $3000. A mistake was made and approx $400,000 was paid, lawyer gets~30-40%.
Would rather have trial by judge, seem less likely to be swayed by emotions. Would be great to see data on outcome by both methods. Who gets to decide judge vs jury, plaintiff or defendant?