|
Penile prosthesis
Just in case Viagra doesn't cut it...
Patient sued urologist and medical center for lack of informed consent and battery, alleging urologist implanted inflatable pump prosthesis in patient's penis without patient's consent.
The Court of Common Pleas, Beaver County, No. 359 of 1992, Peter O'Steege, J., directed a verdict for defendants. Patient appealed and the Superior Court, Cirillo, President Judge Emeritus, No. 1912 PGH 1998, 742 A.2d 1125, reversed and remanded. After granting discretionary review, the Supreme Court, No. 38 WAP 2000,Castille, J., held that: (1) doctrine of informed consent, whether involving non-consensual surgery or a lack of informed consent, sounds in battery, not in negligence, and (2) expert testimony was not required to prove that patient's emotional injuries resulted from unconsented-to and unwanted implantation of penile prosthesis.
Superior Court mandate affirmed.
|
Linear Mode
