On July 18, 2014, a medical malpractice lawsuit was filed against a hospital and a physician, for alleged medical negligence and medical battery. The medical battery claim alleges that the defendant physician performed surgery on the medical malpractice plaintiff without his consent. The Washington medical malpractice lawsuit alleges that the plaintiff told the defendant physician that he was not authorized to perform the surgery on him because another physician was specifically chosen and designated as his surgeon. The plaintiffs allege that the defendant physician added his name to the consent form for the surgery signed by the plaintiff without their knowledge or consent, and after the man had signed the form.
What makes this medical malpractice case stand out even more is that the plaintiff’s wife (who is also a plaintiff in the medical negligence/medical battery case) is an anesthesiologist at the same hospital. She hand-selected and specified the medical providers who would provide medical care and treatment to her husband at the hospital because she was very familiar with the medical staff. The wife had arranged for the head of the hospital’s urology department to perform the initial part of the surgery that required placing a stent in her husband’s right ureter before the more extensive surgery to remove her husband’s tumor would be performed. Nonetheless, the wife was not directly involved in providing care to her husband, who had been diagnosed with a tumor in his abdomen.
On the morning of the scheduled surgery, the plaintiffs were advised that the urologist they had chosen to perform the stent procedure was running late but that her fellow (a surgeon-in-training) would go over the informed consent form with them. The plaintiffs claim that they specifically told the fellow that he was not to perform the stent procedure and that only the head of the urology department was authorized to perform the stent placement. Adding to the plaintiffs’ concern at that time was that the fellow had erroneously written on the consent form that the procedure was a bilateral placement of stents (not just the stent placement on the right ureter), which the fellow then corrected on the form.
Unbeknownst to the plaintiffs, the head of the urology department never arrived in the operating room to perform the surgery and the fellow performed the stent procedure himself, during which the man’s urethra was allegedly obliterated, which required additional surgeries to repair the damage caused by the fellow (tissue had to be harvested from inside of the man’s mouth for a skin graft to build a urethra after which his penis was splayed open to lay the skin graft in the place of the destroyed urethra; his penis was then left in the splayed open position for several months while the skin graft healed; the second stage of the repair involved putting the man’s penis back together once the skin graft had tubularized, followed by three months of healing). The man alleges that he still has significant problems as a result.
When the plaintiffs requested to see a copy of the informed consent form that had been signed, they were provided with a copy in which the fellow was named as being authorized to perform the surgical procedure in addition to the urologist chosen by the plaintiffs, which the plaintiffs contend was added only after the man had signed the form and which they further contend was done so surreptitiously.
The plaintiffs seek unspecified compensatory damages as a result.
If you received medical treatment without your consent and you suffered injuries as a result of the treatment, you may be entitled to compensation for your damages.
Click here to visit our website to be connected with medical malpractice lawyers in Washington or in your U.S. state who may investigate your medical negligence and/or medical battery claim for you and represent you in a medical malpractice case, if appropriate. You may also reach us in the U.S. on our toll-free line: 800-295-3959.
Turn to us when you don’t know where to turn.