Penis Removal Necessary, Kentucky Appeals Court Decides

Penis Removal Case

The Kentucky Court of Appeals decided today that Phillip Seaton should not be awarded damages for the removal of his penis as it was a necessary procedure. Urologist, Dr. John Patterson was performing a routine circumcision when he noticed something unusual.

While removing the foreskin, Patterson discovered a growth on Seaton’s penis, which the doctor later described as similar to “rotten cauliflower.” Suspecting cancer, Dr. Patterson made the decision to remove the infected portion of Seaton’s penis without consulting the man or his wife. Pathologists later confirmed Patterson’s suspicion.

The man was alarmed when he woke up and discovered that he was missing far more than his foreskin. Although the doctor claims he only removed about an inch of flesh, Phillip described his penis as having been mutilated. Another doctor removed the remaining portion of his penis at a later date.

In 2011 Mr. Seaton and his wife filed a lawsuit against Patterson, who maintained that the procedure was necessary to preserve the man’s life. According to Huffington Post, Seaton sought nearly $16 million for “loss of service, love and affection.” After a three day trial, a jury decided that Patterson was not at fault and that the penis removal was necessary.

As reported by ABC this morning, the Kentucky Court of Appeals decided today to honor the decision of the Shelby County Circuit Court. Seaton will not receive any damages for the penis removal as it was necessary to save his life.

Shelton and his wife had previously settled with Jewish Hospital in Kentucky, where the operation was performed, for an undisclosed amount.