These come to mind:
1) it says on the report as quoted:
Clay Robinson, a lawyer for Dr Patterson, defended his client and insisted the doctor had only removed the tip of the penis after he had found cancer and claimed Mr Seaton had signed a document authorising necessary treatment in unforeseen circumstances.
Hence imo,
** If such were the case that he consented to necessary treatment...., then it would have been explained to him what to expect.
** If there was a pre-diagnosis of probable cancer maybe from previous pathological tests and biopsies done etc which
warranted the surgeon to resort to circumcision at his age of 64 and prove otherwise that it's not just inflammation as Mr Seaton states
** If there were photos to show of what was taken out of his penis and/or pieces sent to pathology for tests/confirmation of cancer ( hoping that those pieces were saved under formaldehyde to show proofs
** If proper documentation by the MD is present to state how much was taken out, as also witnessed or notes made by surgical team/nurses/anesthesiologists etc- ( as it states on other news reports, the claim that another surgeon took out the rest of Mr Seaton's penis.:ninja)
then there is a probability, the surgeon might be spared from being charged.
I am just hoping there are more info provided in this report as it's hard to judge who went wrong without all the information needed to establish a case against the surgeon.
As even if the hospital had already settled doesn't mean they have accepted 100 % fault. It might be that they just wanted to have the case dismissed to not interrupt with the hospital business/operation etc.
Since maybe the hospital doesn't have it in their legal doctrines *Respondeat Superior* to cover the surgeon legally hence the lawsuit against the said surgeon.
