A 54-year-old male underwent transurethral resection of prostate, resulting in possible damage to rectum. The co-defendant called for a consult from the defendant. The co-defendant performed a colostomy because of possible rectal fistula.
Plaintiff complained the colostomy was unnecessary and necessitated increased hospitalization and further medical procedures.
Defendant contended colostomy was appropriate to prevent serious infection, and colostomy reversal was performed without complication 15 days later.
Plaintiff sought over $500,000. The jury returned a defense verdict.