Botched surgery: NJ man now suffers ‘extreme pain’ when intimate, lawsuit says

🍆 Man underwent new prostate surgery

🍆 He lost "the ability to ejaculate" as a result, a lawsuit says

🍆 An expert called his injuries "extensive and morbid"

A New Jersey man can no longer get intimate with his wife without terrible pain thanks to a botched prostate surgery, according to a stomach-churning lawsuit.

J.D. and his wife said they were victims of medical malpractice in a lawsuit filed in Superior Court in Essex County. New Jersey 101.5 is not naming the couple because of the sensitivity of the injury.

The Union County man can no longer ejaculate after having a needle inserted into his urethra as part of the "Rezum procedure," according to the suit. An expert testified that the injury was permanent.

The lawsuit demands a jury trial for damages, attorneys' fees, and other costs.

Prostate surgery gone awry?

According to the lawsuit, J.D. began seeing a Cranford urologist for prostate issues in 2016. He had an enlarged prostate.

After two years, the urologist recommended that J.D. undergo the Rezum procedure at the Stone Center of New Jersey in Newark.

Court documents describe the procedure:

"The Rezum procedure involves the insertion of a device into a patient's urethra. Small needles are then deployed through the urethra delivering steam into the enlarged areas of the prostate. The steam is designed to destroy the prostate cells causing the enlarged areas to shrink."

A recall was issued for the Rezum procedure on Dec. 18, 2017, that was not terminated until Aug. 1, 2018. J.D.'s surgery happened on May 1, 2018, according to the lawsuit.

Latest on crinjury lawsuit

Nearly six years later, the case has not been resolved.

An appellate decision handed down last week was a major blow to J.D. Appellate judges ruled that an expert's testimony could not used in the case.

Dr. Michael Palese said there was "no conceivable way" the operation would have left J.D. with his "extensive and morbid" injuries if it had been performed properly.

"The morbid postoperative complications experienced by [J.D.] leaves little doubt that the technique in performing the Rezum is inconsistent with what is described in the operative report and a violation of the standard of care," Palese said.

However, the judges said Palese gave an opinion that the surgery was not done correctly because of the result, instead of pointing to what specifically the urologist did wrong. Palese said during the deposition that there was no way for him to know because he was not present when the procedure was done.

Attorneys for J.D. did not respond to a request for comment from New Jersey 101.5 about the decision.

Report a correction 👈 | 👉 Contact our newsroom