• 21
  • July
    2010

As a patient undergoing a surgery or medical procedure, you generally have a right to choose who performs that procedure. In an interesting medical malpractice case coming out of Ohio, it is alleged that an unsuccessful surgery was performed by doctors other than the one specifically requested by the patient.

According to the lawsuit, David Antoon was diagnosed with prostate cancer in November of 20007 and began conducting research to find a reputable surgeon to provide treatment. He settled on Dr. Jihad H. Kaouck, a surgeon at the Cleveland Clinic with extensive experience in robotic prostate surgery.

Antoon met with Kaouck to discuss the surgery and the chances of a successful outcome. The lawsuit alleges that Kaouck indicated there was a 95% chance that Antone's sexual function would be preserved and a near 100% chance that the surgery would not result in incontinence.

Encouraged by the odds of success given by Kaouck, Antoon chose to have the surgery and specifically requested that Kaouck perform the surgery himself and not allow a resident or other doctor-in-training to perform any part of the procedure. Kaouck allegedly agreed and Antoon signed a consent form adding a comment on top indicating that only Kaouck was authorized to perform the surgery.

The surgery was performed the next month, but Antoon did not have the opportunity to talk to Kaouck before the procedure. Antoon claims that he was told by another doctor that Kaouck would arrive in the operation room after general anesthesia had been administered.

According to the lawsuit, the surgery did not go as planned and resulted in Antoon being incontinent and permanently impotent as well as suffering from Peyronie's disease. When he attempted to discover the cause of the injuries, Antoon learned that his surgery was not performed by Kaouck, but was instead performed by a resident surgeon.

Antoon claims he requested a copy of the consent form he signed and a copy of the videotape made of the surgery, but the clinic thus far either has refused to provide them or has denied they exist.

In his complaint, Antoon accuses the Cleveland Clinic, Kaouck, and the two doctors that actually performed the surgery of medical negligence, breach of the standard of care, battery, conspiracy, and medical fraud. The suit also alleges a lack of informed consent in connection with the explanation of the surgical risks. He is seeking compensatory damages and loss-of-consortium damages.

The Cleveland Clinic has responded saying that the outcome of the surgery was unfortunate, but that Antoon was made aware of the potential for complications.

Related Resources:

Cancer patient sues Cleveland Clinic, claiming doctors-in-training performed prostate surgery that left him incontinent and impotent  (Cleveland.com)