Advertisement

Judge dismisses Penn. prisoner's claim that doctor botched penis surgery

"My penis is enlarged with a hole causing me to urinate on the floor, wet my body, clothes, and smell like urine," inmate says.

By Evan Bleier
Subscribe | UPI Odd Newsletter

Dec. 12 (UPI) -- A former prison doctor was able to avoid a civil rights lawsuit filed by a Pennsylvania prisoner claiming that botched prostate surgery causes him to urinate uncontrollably and wet his pants.

U.S. District Judge Malachy Mannion dismissed the case Monday, ruling that Dr. Rafel Lopez was not “deliberately indifferent” even though he allegedly admitted during an after-care visit that he had made an error while operating on Melvin Turner at Wayne Memorial Hospital in Honesdale, Pa., in July 2011.

Advertisement

In a handwritten federal complaint, Turner alleged that Lopez "cut underneath my penis” and performed "the wrong procedure." He wrote:

“My penis is enlarged with a hole causing me to urinate on the floor, wet my body, clothes, and smell like urine...I must sit down to urinate, I must stand for it to come completely out. Dr. Lopez cut my production sperm-core."

According to Turner, Lopez admitted his error and said he could correct it. Unfortunately the Board of Prisons terminated Lopez before the second procedure could be performed.

"BOP has swept this matter under the rug, but I will not!" Turner wrote.

Advertisement

Turner was seeking $25,000 in compensation for his "pain, humiliation, the two years of embarrassment."

Mannion wrote in his ruling that "the plaintiff's allegations do not rise to the level of 'deliberate indifference' necessary for his civil rights action to proceed to the merits."

"The court acknowledges the plaintiff has alleged a significant hardship in his uncontrolled urination, his enlarged penis, and the hole left from the surgery. However, the plaintiff's surgery and follow-up exams, even liberally construed, amounts to no more than negligent treatment," he continued. Without more, 'mere allegations of malpractice do not raise issues of constitutional import,' and the plaintiff's claim must fail."

[Courthouse News]

Latest Headlines