The plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action against a urologist, alleging negligent performance of a trans-urethral resection of the prostate (TURP) that resulted in total and continuous urinary incontinence.
The court dismissed the action, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish, on a balance of probabilities, that the urologist breached the standard of care or that the alleged breach caused the incontinence.
The court concluded that the incontinence was a known complication, likely attributable to pre-existing conditions of an overactive bladder and a weakened external sphincter, rather than surgical negligence.
