In July 1996, plaintiff Anthony Crisanti, 58, a self-employed tailor, underwent removal of his prostate gland. He subsequently developed mild incontinence and sexual dysfunction.In May 1999, Crisanti developed urine backup and was not able to urinate. Dr. Howard Adler determined that the urinary dysfunction was a product of a bladder-neck stricture that was a result of the 1996 surgery.On May 12, 1999, Adler performed a cystopic procedure to relieve the stricture. During the surgery, Adler determined that Crisanti had developed a suspended bladder stone that was causing the blockage. Adler shattered and flushed the stone. However, the stone was hanging from a section of suture material that had eroded through a tissue wall that was created during the prostate-removal surgery. In an effort to remove the suture material, Adler removed tissue from the bladder neck. Following the surgery, Crisanti developed total incontinence.
Crisanti sued Adler and two other surgeons who assisted Adler, Drs. Wellman Cheung and Albert Kim. Crisanti alleged that the defendants failed to properly perform the May 1999 surgery, that Adler failed to obtain informed consent to the surgery, and that the failures constituted medical malpractice.
Cheung was never served, and Crisanti did not pursue the case against him. Crisanti also discontinued the claim against Kim. The matter proceeded to a trial against Adler.
Crisanti claimed that he did not provide consent for Adler’s removal of the suture material. He acknowledged that he consented to Adler’s opening of the blockage, but he contended that he was never informed of the risks that were associated with the material’s removal. He claimed that he would not have approved the suture-material’s removal if he had known that it would have produced a significant risk of incontinence. The form did not identify incontinence as a risk.
Plaintiff’s counsel also claimed the procedure was not properly performed and that there was no need to remove tissue in the bladder neck. Crisanti’s expert urologist opined that, once the stone was flushed and the blockage had been removed, Adler should have stopped the surgery, revived Crisanti, and then discussed the next course of treatment.
Adler contended that the he exercised good and accepted medical judgment by immediately removing the suture material. Defense counsel argued that Crisanti had read and signed a consent form that permitted Adler’s use of his best medical judgment. Adler’s expert urologists opined that the injury was a known risk of the procedure that Adler performed, and they contended that the suture material was appropriately removed.
Crisanti sustained damage of his bladder neck. He has undergone five collagen injections, but the injections were not successful, and he suffers total incontinence. He also underwent five procedures for the installation of artificial sphincters that enable him to urinate.
Crisanti claimed that his condition is permanent and that it causes great embarrassment. He sought recovery of a total of $1.2 million for his past and future pain and suffering. His wife sought recovery of damages for her loss of consortium.
The jury rendered a defense verdict. It found that Adler did not depart from accepted care standards.