Recent Case Involving Amputated Penis Resembles Kentucky Case From 2011

August 4, 2014

Before undergoing any sort of medical procedure, patients are typically supposed to provide what is known as "informed consent." Informed consent means that all patients should understand and agree to the potential consequences of their care. While Kentucky recognizes exceptions to the rule, such as in certain emergencies, a physician who performs a procedure without the patient's informed consent may be liable for medical battery.

surgical-instruments-1183621-m.jpgRecently, an informed consent case arose in the news regarding an amputated penis. Although the case was in Alabama rather than Kentucky, it raised parallels with a case in Kentucky that was decided in 2011. In the current case, an Alabama man had a medical procedure for a circumcision at Princeton Baptist Medical Center and later learned that surgeons had amputated his penis. The patient, Johnny Lee Banks, claims that he never gave his informed consent to a complete or partial amputation procedure. Banks and his wife are now suing the Medical Center and the two doctors who performed the amputation, seeking damages for pain and suffering, medical bills, and loss of consortium, among other things. Meanwhile, the defendants have filed a motion to dismiss the case, stating that the allegations were false and that neither doctor performed a circumcision or removed any tissue from Banks' penis.

The case is very similar to one in Kentucky that was decided a few years ago. Informed consent under Kentucky law mirrors the requirements of other states. Back in 2007, a Kentucky man was undergoing a circumcision to treat inflammation when the doctor performing the procedure found a potentially deadly cancer on his penis. The doctor removed less than an inch of the penis, and after a pathologist confirmed the cancer diagnosis, a second doctor removed the rest of the penis. The doctor claimed the man had already provided permission to take any treatment action, and that there was no other reasonable option available to prevent the cancer from spreading other than removing the penis. However, the patient sued the doctors, claiming that they had amputated his penis without his informed consent and without allowing him to seek a second option. In 2011, the jury ended up siding with the doctors.

Likewise, the Alabama doctors and Medical Center defend their actions. Prior to the procedure, Banks was reportedly being treated for swelling to his genitals. One of the doctors performed a small slit supposedly intended to allow him to insert a catheter to help with urination. Banks was told by his doctor that he would likely need to undergo a circumcision at a later date, but that doctor did not perform this specific procedure. Prior to the Kentucky case, an Indiana man had won $2.3 million after having his penis and testicles removed without his consent in 1997.

Miller & Falkner is an Indiana and Kentucky plaintiffs law firm. Located in Louisville, Kentucky, the firm provides representation in the areas of personal injury and employment law. If you need a Kentucky or Indiana personal injury attorney, contact us today for a free consultation.

Related Posts:

Doctor Not Liable for Medical Battery in Kentucky

District Court in Eastern Kentucky Dismisses Case By Prisoner in Noble v. Three Forks Regional Jail Authority

Indiana Court of Appeals Denies Injured Party the Right to Appeal Judgment in Durall v. Weinberger