The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P alleged that D operated on him and that such an operation was unauthorized. P came to D complaining of urinary problems and agreed to a cystoscopic examination. During the examination, D claimed that he had talked to P of his findings and got authorization to do a transurethral prostatic resection. P alleged that D never told him his spermatic cords would be cut. P eventually testified that he expected the doctor to do what was right. P presented his case and D moved for a directed verdict on grounds that P failed to prove any negligence or any cause of action against D. That motion was granted. P appealed.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.