Men’s Health & Sexual Medicine and the Litigious Patient: A Review of Malpractice Cases

Objective: Recent literature suggests growing rates of malpractice claims against urologists. These cases provide insight into errors that may lead to litigation. We aim to analyze malpractice suits related to men’s health and highlight clinical presentations and legal outcomes.

Methods: Per STROBE guidelines, we searched the publicly available Thomson Reuters Westlaw legal database for “jury verdicts and settlements” from January 1970 to August 2023 to identify medical malpractice cases in Urology. Patient demographics, clinical presentation, alleged error, and legal outcomes were abstracted during a full case review by an independent screener. Cases related to men’s sexual health or fertility that named a urologist as the defendant were fully analyzed.

Results: A total of 553 urology cases were extracted, with 23 men’s health related cases subsequently analyzed. The most common conditions associated with litigation were penile prosthesis (39%), epidydimal pathology (13%), and varicocele (13%). The most common allegations were misdiagnosis (26%), surgical complication (22%), lack of informed consent (22%), and violation of standard of care (22%). Of the 23 cases, 57% ruled “no liability” in favor of the urologist and 39% ruled in favor of the plaintiff with a median award of $335,000 (IQR = 100 ,000-450, with 000). Among cases ruled as negligent, performing the incorrect procedure, surgical complications, and violating the standard of care were prominent allegations.

Conclusions: This study characterizes malpractice cases related to men’s sexual health naming urologists as defendants. Obtaining comprehensive informed consent, following national guidelines, and responding appropriately to surgical complications may minimize likelihood of litigation and maximize patient outcomes.

Cite this article as: Voleti SS, Ghaith S, Warren C, Punjani N. Men’s health & sexual medicine and the litigious patient: A review of malpractice cases. Urol Res Pract. 2024;50(6):328-331.