Sexual dysfunction damages: A legal database review
Keywords:medicolegal, medical claims, urology, malpractice
Introduction: Procedural specialties are at higher risk for malpractice claims than non-procedural specialties. Previous studies have examined common damages and malpractice lawsuits resulting from specific procedures. Our goal was to analyze urological interventions that led to sexual dysfunction (SD) claims.
Methods: The Casetext legal research platform was queried using search terms for medical malpractice and common men’s health procedures between 1993 and 2020. In total, 236 cases were found, and 21 cases met the inclusion criteria: malpractice cases against a urologist or urology group, clearly stated legal outcome, and allegation of sexual dysfunction from an intervention that directly caused damages.
Results: A total of 42 damages were cited in 21 lawsuits. The top three damages claimed were erectile dysfunction (ED) (14/42, 33.3%), genital pain syndrome (7/42, 16.7%), and urinary incontinence (5/42, 11.9%). The most commonly cited treatments were urinary catheter placement or removal (3/21, 14.3%), robotic-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) (3/21, 14.3%), circumcision (3/21, 14.3%), and penile implant (3/21, 14.3%). In 19 of 21 suits (90.4%), the outcome favored the defendant. Two cases favored the plaintiff: penile implant (failure to prove the patient was permanently, organically impotent prior to the procedure; missed urethral injury at time of surgery, $300 000) and vasectomy (damage to vasculature resulting in loss of testicle, $300 000).
Conclusions: Most suspected malpractice cases resulting in SD favored the defendant urologist. Interestingly, urinary catheter placement is as likely to result in litigation as other operative interventions, such as RALP, inflatable penile prosthesis, and circumcision. It is possible that thorough preoperative counselling and increased responsiveness to patients’ postoperative concerns may have avoided litigation in several cases.
How to Cite
You, the Author(s), assign your copyright in and to the Article to the Canadian Urological Association. This means that you may not, without the prior written permission of the CUA:
- Post the Article on any Web site
- Translate or authorize a translation of the Article
- Copy or otherwise reproduce the Article, in any format, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so
- Copy or otherwise reproduce portions of the Article, including tables and figures, beyond what is permitted under Canadian copyright law, or authorize others to do so.
The CUA encourages use for non-commercial educational purposes and will not unreasonably deny any such permission request.
You retain your moral rights in and to the Article. This means that the CUA may not assert its copyright in such a way that would negatively reflect on your reputation or your right to be associated with the Article.
The CUA also requires you to warrant the following:
- That you are the Author(s) and sole owner(s), that the Article is original and unpublished and that you have not previously assigned copyright or granted a licence to any other third party;
- That all individuals who have made a substantive contribution to the article are acknowledged;
- That the Article does not infringe any proprietary right of any third party and that you have received the permissions necessary to include the work of others in the Article; and
- That the Article does not libel or violate the privacy rights of any third party.