• Ice pack causes gangrene on penis

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:25 am**

LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- An Army veteran is seeking $10 million from the federal government, accusing a Veterans Administration nurse of repeatedly putting ice packs on his penis after surgery, causing frostbite and gangrene and ultimately leading to the organ's partial amputation.

Michael D. Nash of Louisville filed suit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Louisville for what he calls medical malpractice.

Nash, who served in the Army in 1968 and 1969, went to the VA hospital in Lexington for medically necessary surgery on his penis. Nash's attorney, Larry Jones of Jones Ward law firm in Louisville, said that after the procedure a nurse packed Nash's groin in ice for 19 hours.

"It basically caused frostbite on his penis, which eventually caused gangrene," Jones said. "In addition to robbing someone of their manhood, they've robbed him of the simple ability to urinate just like every other person who lives in this world."

A message left for the Veterans Administration was not immediately returned Tuesday morning.

Nash, 61, entered the VA hospital on Oct. 28, 2010, to have a penile implant and circumcision. A nurse applied ice packs to Nash's groin to reduce pain and swelling. The problem arose when the medical staff allowed the ice packs to remain in place for about 19 hours.

Jones described it as "non-stop ice replacement."

"Any doctor who is monitoring the care of their patient is not going to allow someone to have constant treatment with ice ... for more than 2-3 hours," Jones said.

Gangrene set it in within a few weeks, causing doctors to remove a five-inch section of Nash's penis a procedure for which he continues to receive medical care, Jones said. Nash will need reconstructive surgery that will allow him to urinate, Jones said.

"It's about the most blatant medical malpractice error one could make," Jones said. "It's a senseless tragedy that should never have happened."

Nash initially pursued compensation under the Federal Tort Claims Act a civil procedure which requires a person to file a claim with the government and prevents them from suing until the claim is resolved.

The Department of Veterans Affairs reviewed the claim and rejected it in July.

"It is our opinion that there was no negligence on the part of the Department of Veterans Affairs or any of its employees in connection with the claimed loss; therefore your claim is denied," wrote Melinda Frick, Indianapolis-based regional counsel for the VA.

Jones said the extent of Nash's injuries are what prompted the lawsuit.

"If this was someone who had a little frostbite and a little burning for a couple of days, there would be no suit," Jones said. "I would not wish this on my worst enemy."

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:29 am**

hazbalz (imported) wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:25 am they've robbed him of the simple ability to urinate just like every other person who lives in this world

My inner female persona was extremely offended by that comment.

Also, TEN MILLION dollars? Is his precious manhood really worth that much? Enough money for five middle-class families to live comfortably off of for their entire lives? Is one little body part down there, which a lot of us would actually be glad to be rid of, really that valuable? It's not like they hacked off an arm or a leg or something that would actually make him unable to work or go on functioning normally. Plus, he's SIXTY-ONE freaking years old! If it was a young guy who hadn't had a family yet, then maybe I could understand, but he's 61! He doesn't even need the damned thing anymore at that age.

Whatever. I don't understand lawsuit logic.

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:16 am**

cheetaking243 (imported) wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:29 am My inner female persona was extremely offended by that comment.

Also, TEN MILLION dollars? Is his precious manhood really worth that much? Enough money for five middle-class families to live comfortably off of for their entire lives? Is one little body part down there, which a lot of us would actually be glad to be rid of, really that valuable? It's not like they hacked off an arm or a leg or something that would actually make him unable to work or go on functioning normally. Plus, he's SIXTY-ONE freaking years old! If it was a young guy who hadn't had a family yet, then maybe I could understand, but he's 61! He doesn't even need the damned thing anymore at that age.

Whatever. I don't understand lawsuit logic.

the setting of damages in lawsuits isn't too hard to understand:

-step 1; out-of-court settlement. damages set ridiculously high make for an excellent initial bargaining position. but if there's no settlement, you go to step 2:

-step 2; the judge's assessment. in the event of a favorable court ruling, it is EXTREMELY rare for a judge award more than is asked for. so be ambitious, you might get lucky. also, whle you might make a living asking "would you like fries with that?", the judge likely has a 6-figure salary & might set pain & suffering awards based on what he would think himself entitled to in similar circumstances.

so to recap lawyer logic, if you don't ask for it, you can't get it.

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 10:31 am**

cheetaking243 (imported) wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2012 8:29 am My inner female persona was extremely offended by that comment....

Whatever. I don't understand lawsuit logic.

Nobody really understands anything that goes on inside the American "justice" system, all that I can say is that it is common practice to initiate with an insanely high number, so that the other side feels you are being sooooo reasonable to offer to settle for half that ammount, and finally after a lot of haggling, they are grateful to pay off a quarter the ammount and be done with it. The VA had the chance to settle on a reasonable figure with the vetran's first attempt, IF they had paid off then, or just offered, seriously, he would have probably been happy to take $50,000 and be done with it... but noooooooooo, the VA (like all government entities) sees it self as totally infallable, so they blew it by denying that first claim and losing any chance to settle this matter on a reasonable number. So now lawyers are involved, and none of them have a grip on reality, one side says a 61 year old man's penis is worth 10 million, the other side says it is totally OK to neglect post operative care until gangrene sets in, neither side is even close to reasonable, but after ten years of haggling, the VA will probably jump at the chance to settle the matter for a paltry two million, 1.5 million will go to the lawyers, of the remaining $500k, 350k will go to taxes, and in ten years a semi-senile 71 year old man will pocket $150,000 for something he never remembers having much less losing.

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 11:08 am**

hazbalz (imported) wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:25 am Gangrene set it in within a few weeks, causing doctors to remove a five-inch section of Nash's penis

Five inches? Is that flaccid or erect? Either way, that would be all of mine including what's inside my body. Frosbite, reminds me of a guy who purposely froze his penis, there were pictures on malebodymods.com for awhile. He used dry ice and it froze white. He lost a lot and spent a lot of time in the hospital. Man what was his name?

Found it! He calls himself Abbreviated: http://malebodymods.com/index.php?do=/p ... e0003-jpg/

It's an awesome picture, hope you have an account.

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:24 pm**

Can you get frostbit an icepack? Cheetaking I all most 71 and I can still get it up. I question the cause. Ernie

hazbalz (imported) wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:25 am LOUISVILLE, Ky. -- An Army veteran is seeking $10 million from the federal government, accusing a Veterans Administration nurse of repeatedly putting ice packs on his penis after surgery, causing frostbite and gangrene and ultimately leading to the organ's partial amputation.

Michael D. Nash of Louisville filed suit Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Louisville for what he calls medical malpractice.

Nash, who served in the Army in 1968 and 1969, went to the VA hospital in Lexington for medically necessary surgery on his penis. Nash's attorney, Larry Jones of Jones Ward law firm in Louisville, said that after the procedure a nurse packed Nash's groin in ice for 19 hours.

"It basically caused frostbite on his penis, which eventually caused gangrene," Jones said. "In addition to robbing someone of their manhood, they've robbed him of the simple ability to urinate just like every other person who lives in this world."

A message left for the Veterans Administration was not immediately returned Tuesday morning.

Nash, 61, entered the VA hospital on Oct. 28, 2010, to have a penile implant and circumcision. A nurse applied ice packs to Nash's groin to reduce pain and swelling. The problem arose when the medical staff allowed the ice packs to remain in place for about 19 hours.

Jones described it as "non-stop ice replacement."

"Any doctor who is monitoring the care of their patient is not going to allow someone to have constant treatment with ice ... for more than 2-3 hours," Jones said.

Gangrene set it in within a few weeks, causing doctors to remove a five-inch section of Nash's penis – a procedure for which he continues to receive medical care, Jones said. Nash will need reconstructive surgery that will allow him to urinate, Jones said.

"It's about the most blatant medical malpractice error one could make," Jones said. "It's a senseless tragedy that should never have happened."

Nash initially pursued compensation under the Federal Tort Claims Act – a civil procedure which requires a person to file a claim with the government and prevents them from suing until the claim is resolved.

The Department of Veterans Affairs reviewed the claim and rejected it in July.

"It is our opinion that there was no negligence on the part of the Department of Veterans Affairs or any of its employees in connection with the claimed loss; therefore your claim is denied," wrote Melinda Frick, Indianapolis-based regional counsel for the VA.

Jones said the extent of Nash's injuries are what prompted the lawsuit.

"If this was someone who had a little frostbite and a little burning for a couple of days, there would be no suit," Jones said. "I would not wish this on my worst enemy."

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:57 pm**

Ernie of Maine (imported) wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2012 12:24 pm Can you get frostbit an icepack? Cheetaking I all most 71 and I can still get it up. I question the cause. Ernie

It seems to me that an ice pack containing only frozen water, thus having no electrolyte or other non-water freezing point depression additive, ought not be capable of inducing frostbite in human tissue because the salinity of living tissue will depress its freezing point below zero Celsius. Furthermore, who in any sort of "right mind" puts an ice pack of any sort in direct contact with living tissue?

A very sad story.

And, even for someone desperate for a penectomy, getting it by gangrene is a terrible thing in my view.

As for tort liability lawsuits, I have my own understanding of them, which I have elsewhere partly put on the Archive message boards in what may be, for all I can grasp, excruciating detail.

I learned about tort lawsuits by being condemned to the tragic status of respondent in one some years ago.

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:36 pm**

janekane (imported) wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:57 pm It seems to me that an ice pack containing only frozen water, thus having no electrolyte or other non-water freezing point depression additive, ought not be capable of inducing frostbite in human tissue because the salinity of living tissue will depress its freezing point below zero Celsius. Furthermore, who in any sort of "right mind" puts an ice pack of any sort in direct contact with living tissue?

A very sad story.

And, even for someone desperate for a penectomy, getting it by gangrene is a terrible thing in my view.

As for tort liability lawsuits, I have my own understanding of them, which I have elsewhere partly put on the Archive message boards in what may be, for all I can grasp, excruciating detail.

I learned about tort lawsuits by being condemned to the tragic status of respondent in one some years ago.

The temperature of the ice can be well below freezing, this allows the transfer of heat from the tissue to the water in a quantity that can cause the water in the tissue to freeze. Most of us have seen this when the cubes of ice in our glass all freeze together.

Elizabeth

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 5:09 pm**

Elizabeth (imported) wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2012 3:36 pm The temperature of the ice can be well below freezing, this allows the transfer of heat from the tissue to the water in a quantity that can cause the water in the tissue to freeze. Most of us have seen this when the cubes of ice in our glass all freeze together.

Elizabeth

Most of the "heat capacity" of ice is stored in the state-change (heat of crystallization) of the of the ice when the ice is at a temperature close enough to freezing to be safe to use in a hospital ice pack. Obviously, frozen water can be reduced in temperature to near absolute zero, and ice, at that temperature will indeed have most of its cooling capacity, relative to body temperature, in the heat extracted by being cooled below its freezing temperature. But I worked in a very large hospital for many years and never encountered water ice seriously super-cooled below its liquid-solid transition temperature being used in an ice pack.

I never worked in a VA hospital, perhaps things never done in the hospitals where I worked are common in VA hospitals.

I surmise, from the description of the nursing activity that led to gangrene, that the nurses may have changed the ice packs tragically often, only that would allow tissue, which, being of "normal salinity (0.9% NaCl) has a noteworthy freezing point depression (I recall, something akin to -1.8 Celsius) relative to plain water, and plain water is all I would ever consider using, as a bioengineer, in an ice pack intended to minimize edema in a post-surgical patient, were a physician to properly consult me as a licensed professional expert in biology.

I understand that the specific heat of water at near 0 Celsius is something like 4.2 kJ/kg, the specific heat of water ice at near 0 Celsius is something like 2.05 kJ/kg, and the heat of crystallization of water is something like 334 kJ/kg. For the heat energy of supercooling of ice to match the heat energy of crystallization, the ice would, methinks, need to be cooled to about -162 Celsius. An ice pack at -162 Celsius, not wrapped, ought to produce instantaneous frostbite, first in the fingers of the nurse carrying it toward the patient.

So, I continue to find that the main cooling effect of an ice pack in a safe hospital setting would have to be the result of absorbing from the patient the heat of crystallization (or, if one prefers, the heat of melting) to melt the ice.

Sometimes, accurate, signed numerical values are informative to me.

And I do make misteakes.

Posted: **Thu Oct 04, 2012 7:58 pm**

janekane (imported) wrote: Thu Oct 04, 2012 2:57 pm It seems to me that an ice pack containing only frozen water

Modern "ice packs" are a blue gel, not frozen water.

Ice pack causes gangrene on penis

Ice pack causes gangrene on penis

Re: Ice pack causes gangrene on penis

Re: Ice pack causes gangrene on penis

Re: Ice pack causes gangrene on penis

Re: Ice pack causes gangrene on penis

Re: Ice pack causes gangrene on penis

Re: Ice pack causes gangrene on penis

Re: Ice pack causes gangrene on penis

Re: Ice pack causes gangrene on penis

Re: Ice pack causes gangrene on penis