Ky. jury rules against penis amputation patient
SHELBYVILLE, Ky., Wed Aug 24, 05:02 PM
I dont know if this was posted before .
Phillip Seaton, right, and his wife Deborah are shown Monday, Aug. 22, 2011 in Shelby County Circuit courtroom in Shelbyville...More
A jury on Wednesday ruled against a Kentucky truck driver who sued his urologist claiming the doctor amputated part of his penis without his consent.
The six-man, six-woman jury deliberated briefly before coming back with the verdict in the lawsuit filed by 64-year-old Phillip Seaton, and his wife, Deborah, in Shelby County Circuit Court.
The jury ruled unanimously against the claim that Dr. John Patterson of Frankfort had failed to exercise proper care. It ruled 10-2 against the claim that Seaton hadn't consented to the amputation.
Jurors were told that Seaton had gone to Patterson seeking a circumcision in 2007, but the doctor decided to amputate part of the organ after he found potentially deadly cancer during surgery.
All jurors, including the forewoman, declined to comment as they filed out of the courthouse after the trial.
Seaton, who with his wife of 35 years had been seeking more than $16 million in damages for "loss of service, love and affection," also declined to comment after the verdict.
The Seatons' attorney, Kevin George, said in closing arguments, "Phillip has changed. He was mutilated. His manhood was taken."
George said he planned to appeal the decision on the grounds that a doctor is allowed to change a consent for surgery only if there is a danger of imminent death.
"There was no emergency, no reason to do it," George said of the amputation.
Patterson said after the verdict, "I think we're feeling pretty good." He declined to say more about the highly publicized case, calling one reporter who tried to question him "a member of the tabloid press."
"We feel like justice was done," the doctor's attorney, Clay Robinson, said.
"No doctor ever wins a malpractice action," Robinson said. "It's just a matter of how much you lose by."
The key question of the case revolved around whether Patterson should have halted the surgery when he made the surprise discovery of penile cancer, then consulted the Seatons before taking further action.
Seaton, a heavyset former truck driver from Waddy sporting a long, gray ponytail and gray beard, receives Social Security disability payments because of arthritis and bad eyesight, according to court testimony. Clad in a button-down shirt, he showed little reaction through most of the three days of testimony but said on the witness stand that he was "bad case" emotionally after hearing the news of the partial amputation and had wanted to run from the hospital.
"I didn't have no say in it," Seaton said. "I wasn't told what had to be done. It was just done."
According to court testimony, Seaton had told his general practitioner during a routine examination that he was experiencing burning when he urinated and was prescribed a cream. When symptoms persisted, the doctor later referred Seaton to Patterson, who recommended a simple circumcision, according to court testimony.
Seaton had testified that he had not been told prior to the surgery that it would be anything but a circumcision, and had even joked with his doctor about the procedure.
But Patterson testified Monday that when he cut the foreskin, the tip of the penis had the appearance of rotten cauliflower, indicating cancer. A pathologist later testified that tests confirmed the diagnosis.
"What I saw was not a penis. What I saw was cancer," Patterson had testified.
Patterson said he removed less than an inch of Seaton's penis. The rest of the penis was amputated by another doctor later, Patterson's lawyer said.
E-mail this article Printer-friendly version
Copyright © 2010 All rights reserved.
This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Legal Disclaimer
