Court upholds decision in penis amputation case
LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) - A Kentucky man lost his bid Friday to force a doctor to pay damages for removing a cancer-riddled section of his penis during what was scheduled to be a simple circumcision.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals found that a jury correctly concluded that 66-year-old Phillip Seaton of Waddy consented to allow Dr. John Patterson to perform any procedure deemed necessary during the Oct. 19, 2007, surgery.
Patterson, a Kentucky-based urologist, maintains he found cancer in the man's penis during surgery and that it had to be removed. The patient claims the surgery was supposed to be a circumcision and he never authorized the amputation, nor was he given a chance to seek a second opinion.
"Additionally, there is uncontroverted testimony in the record that if Mr. Seaton were not treated for the penile cancer, it would prove fatal in the future," Judge Janet Stumbo wrote for the court.
Judge Michael Caperton dissented, but did not issue a written opinion.
Seaton and his wife, Deborah, sued Patterson, a Kentucky-based urologist, in Shelby County Circuit Court in 2008. Seaton, now in his 60s, was having the procedure to better treat inflammation. The Seatons also sued Jewish Hospital, where the surgery took place. The hospital settled with the couple for an undisclosed amount.
Both sides agree that Seaton had squamous cell carcinoma, a type of skin cancer, in his penis. Patterson concluded that a tumor had overtaken much of the top of the organ, which made it impossible to insert a catheter.
"He also opined that serious complications and additional surgery could result if he did not insert the catheter," Stumbo wrote.
The main point of contention is whether Patterson acted reasonably in removing the organ immediately or if amputation could have been delayed to let Seaton seek other medical options.
Stumbo and Judge Donna Dixon concluded that, even though Seaton had limited ability to read and write, he never informed the doctor of that fact and signed the consent form in the presence of a witness. The Seatons claimed that the waiver didn't give Patterson authority to conduct an amputation without further consent.
"They maintain that no harm would have resulted if Dr. Patterson has consulted with either of them before proceeding, or if he had allowed them to consult with another physician to get a second opinion or other treatment options," Stumbo wrote.
Stumbo wrote that Patterson acted properly because the tumor had consumed such a large section of the organ.
"For this reason alone, the resection of the tumor was 'necessary and proper' in the context of inserting a catheter," Stumbo wrote.
Clay Robinson, the Lexington-based attorney for Patterson, and Kevin George of Louisville, the attorney for Seaton, did not immediately return messages seeking comment.
The Kentucky Court of Appeals found that a jury correctly concluded that 66-year-old Phillip Seaton of Waddy consented to allow Dr. John Patterson to perform any procedure deemed necessary during the Oct. 19, 2007, surgery.
Patterson, a Kentucky-based urologist, maintains he found cancer in the man's penis during surgery and that it had to be removed. The patient claims the surgery was supposed to be a circumcision and he never authorized the amputation, nor was he given a chance to seek a second opinion.
"Additionally, there is uncontroverted testimony in the record that if Mr. Seaton were not treated for the penile cancer, it would prove fatal in the future," Judge Janet Stumbo wrote for the court.
Judge Michael Caperton dissented, but did not issue a written opinion.
Seaton and his wife, Deborah, sued Patterson, a Kentucky-based urologist, in Shelby County Circuit Court in 2008. Seaton, now in his 60s, was having the procedure to better treat inflammation. The Seatons also sued Jewish Hospital, where the surgery took place. The hospital settled with the couple for an undisclosed amount.
Both sides agree that Seaton had squamous cell carcinoma, a type of skin cancer, in his penis. Patterson concluded that a tumor had overtaken much of the top of the organ, which made it impossible to insert a catheter.
"He also opined that serious complications and additional surgery could result if he did not insert the catheter," Stumbo wrote.
The main point of contention is whether Patterson acted reasonably in removing the organ immediately or if amputation could have been delayed to let Seaton seek other medical options.
Stumbo and Judge Donna Dixon concluded that, even though Seaton had limited ability to read and write, he never informed the doctor of that fact and signed the consent form in the presence of a witness. The Seatons claimed that the waiver didn't give Patterson authority to conduct an amputation without further consent.
"They maintain that no harm would have resulted if Dr. Patterson has consulted with either of them before proceeding, or if he had allowed them to consult with another physician to get a second opinion or other treatment options," Stumbo wrote.
Stumbo wrote that Patterson acted properly because the tumor had consumed such a large section of the organ.
"For this reason alone, the resection of the tumor was 'necessary and proper' in the context of inserting a catheter," Stumbo wrote.
Clay Robinson, the Lexington-based attorney for Patterson, and Kevin George of Louisville, the attorney for Seaton, did not immediately return messages seeking comment.
All I can say is "yikes"!
I'm confused. Â I would think something would appear "off" during a physical inspection. Â If that were the case, I'm sure the doctor mentioned that something didn't look quite right. Â I can't help but wonder what happened conversationally prior to the surgery.
Â
Additionally, since Mr. Seaton had a spouse and, probably, allowed her medical consent, why didn't the doctor come out and at least ask of her thoughts? Â I am thinking he started the surgical procedure, began cutting the flesh, and didn't stop until he saw clear margins on a microscope slide THEN told Mr. and Mrs. Seaton what happened and why he did what he did.
Â
Last comment. Â I know the initial surgery isn't considered a big surgery but, if it was covered by insurance, I would think that prior authorization would be necessary. Â That is more than likely limited only to the terms of the agreed-upon surgery. Â I've had a bigger surgery but the consent forms I signed said if they couldn't do option 1, there was no option 2. Â They'd stitch me up and take me out of sedation. Â An additional surgery, if necessary, would be scheduled after insurance and the doctor/hospital came to an agreement for payment of the bill. Â So did insurance actually pay for the surgery? Â Unless truly medically necessary, I know they don't tend to cover circumcisions.
And if the doctor had decided not to remove the cancer, the man probably would have sued him anyway. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.Â
Â
Squamous cell carcinoma can be a very aggressive form of skin cancer, not quite as bad as melanoma, but almost. This man is probably lucky to be alive today because his physician did his job properly, assessed the situation, and made a decision to save this man's life.Â
If I had an operation for something simple as that, but woke up and found my only man hood cut off I would have probably killed the quak. We should be able to get a second opinon for such a drastic thing to wake up too. I had a quak inspect my crushed elbow and I asked him about an elbow replacement and he said yes we have them for 80 year old ladies, IÂ said why do you wait until some one is on the edge of their grave befor you replace an elbow?QUAK.
Even from the vantage point of a female, I would think that experience would be devastating for a man... not only the surgery itself, but the fact that there would have been no time for the patient to "mental prepare" for it...(for lack of a better term). Â Â Also, a 2nd medical opinion, while it might not have changed the final outcome, might have provided at least a degree of comfort to Mr Seaton.
Not being a physician, and not having any knowledge of the situation beyond just what is in this story, I can't comment on the surgery itself or the urgency for it... but I can certainly understand, and sympathize with, Mr Seaton's distress.
Â
66-year-old Phillip Seaton of Waddy
Â
Nice to have, but did he REALLY need it at his age??
 @disgustedman Take yours off when you get to that age and let us know if you miss it...
i wouldnt want to wake up
I've heard / read about women who faced mastectomies who went through the same mental / emotional distress... I think it's like losing something - a part of you - that "makes" you who and what you are...
We're so conditioned to viewing people by appearance and physical characteristics... it's sad...