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.
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?
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?
I was more surprised about the $50k to the wife for "loss of consortium"...