Case or no case: Man Who Went In For A Circumcision And Came Out With A Vasectomy

Fred: We are about ready to talk about one of the most interesting cases out of Iowa that occurred, where a man went in for just a circumcision and now can’t have any more kids because they gave him a vasectomy.It’s just like he goes in there and it’s just like, you know what, I’ll tell you this – they tell the wife “hey, is this really want to do to him?” Denise, tell us what happened
Denise: No, it makes me laugh because what I’m envisioning in my head is that there are guys in the room, and in the other room they have their cups on and they’re all (used) like protective gear

Todd: He took the gun to the shop to have the sights fixed, it came back without any bullets. That’s what happened. And it was a problem.

Fred: Okay, all right!

Denise: Oh and he got a lot of money got $2 million dollars because he can’t now procreate, presumably

Todd: We gotta kill tell the whole story. Who’s setting this one up? Because apparently, I can’t.

Fred: You do go ahead do it. But I want to say one thing –   The Iowa hospital was not found liable

Todd: which is baffling.

Fred:  It’s the doctor that was found liable. But it says what’s called a “comparative negligence state” Iowa is. What is the comparative negligence state? They can apportion fault, and they found the individual that had the vasectomy, instead of the circumcision was 30% at fault for causing that to happen.

30% of the fault and the doctor was held 70% at fault, and it was a $2 million. verdict. Todd, I know you’re just itching and scratching to get to this.

Todd: There are some people who think the word Iowa stands for “IO the world an apology” and I’m certain that Zaza would agree – that is the name of the Burmese man who went in.

You know, there’s a movie that the man who went up a hill and came down a mountain, the man who went into the hospital for a circumcision and came out with a vasectomy. And that’s what happened to Zaza back in December of 2015. He spoke limited English, so when he went in, he goes in with a note from the referring doctor saying, you know, “snip, don’t cut”. The deal was just to take a little off the top, this is what we want here, this is what’s going. And he wakes up and looks down and everything looks the same, but apparently his functionality was severely impaired. And he filed a lawsuit and a jury ended up giving him 2 million bucks, but they said that he was somehow (liable).

So if you go, in English, and you take a note from your doctor, where they spell it out, yes, you too continue still be liable … but Mason Rudolph for the Steelers still did nothing wrong kicking the guy in the groin.

Cal: He was giving him a pre-vasectomy

Fred: That was the hospital’s defense, or the doctor’s defense is that they blamed him.

Cal:Wait, he couldn’t read?

Fred: I’ll tell you. That’s the reason why – this is what they say – they blamed him and he should have known we were doing things the wrong way. “Looking down there, look, I’m not quite sure what’s going on down there.” I’m telling you, I doubt he’s watching this, you know.

Todd: When you invite a plumber over to your house, and he’s sitting there working on the plumbing, which arguably is applicable here. You don’t look over the shoulder and say, “Hey, you know, I think you need to use a three sixteenths wrench, some gauze pads and some silly” –  but you’re sitting there probably uncomfortable with the location, where it’s taking place anyway. His argument’s probably “look I wanted to hire a plumber and they gave me the tile guy.”

Denise: You know, they never found the mark, you know, the black sharpie mark

Todd: Oh, there you go. Before I go,  I’d be writing all over – “here! Not HERE!”

Cal: I confess, when I was getting a vasectomy, honestly I was looking away like this going “aw-oh!, oh man” (painful grunt)

Denise: You mean, you were awake?

Cal: Yeah

Todd: Here’s the thing, the hospital put on notice saying “we are we happy that the hospital was not found to be at fault.” Never mind the fact that the hospital shredded the document, and, in another case, (when) a wrongful surgery happened in the same hospital, they shredded that document too.

I’m thinking – you guys might want to keep some of your documents. And to Denise’s point about this guy’s inability to procreate in the future the very last line of the article I read on this said that he is going to undergo an additional procedure to have the vasectomy reversed.

If anybody’s ever watched soap operas, apparently that happens all the time.

But just on its own, you know, vasectomies – that’s a common theme!

Cal: It has been known to reverse. It’s rare, but occasionally the two little bits can grow back together.

Todd: You know, you’ve heard the you’ve heard the children’s story, the little train that could? Again, I think what – that’s the little sperm that could. That’s why it reverses because they just don’t give up.

Denise: So here here’s the breakdown of the damages: for past loss of function of body, $500,000; For future loss of function $250,000; physical and mental pain and suffering, $1 million; future physical and mental pain and suffering $250,000 – that’s how they got to the to the $2 million.

Cal: It should have been 5 million bucks.

Denise:  I agree with you. I think it should have been way more than that.

Cal: You mutilate someone from procreation, this is a problem. An accidental mutilation’s what this is in my opinion.

Todd: The doctor by the way is no longer employed by the Iowa hospital, and has moved on somewhere else.

Fred: Nebraska.

Todd: I just wonder if he’s going to go back to have the original procedure done, what he actually wanted, which was the circumcision.

 

 

**Radio Law Talk does not guarantee the accuracy of all detail research.Above is the written research performed prior to one of the latest shows. Neither Radio Law Talk nor its hosts guarantee its complete accuracy as it is a “working script” only and as such is used as a base foundation of the legal topics discussed. Many additions and changes made during and before the broadcast.” This is for informational purposes only and not to be relied upon as all of the issues or law for the subject topic. Seek legal counsel for all your legal needs.