A Salt Lake medical malpractice trial starts tomorrow, May 9th, in Third District Court. Weidman v. Fisher, #180901409 (Hon. Dianna Gibson). This Salt Lake medical malpractice trial is expected to last until May 18th.​


The complaint alleges that Brad Weidman was misdiagnosed by his urologist, Peter Fisher, M.D., with ejaculatory duct obstruction (EDO). This is a blockage or inflammation of the tubes in which the sperm travel that prevents the sperm mixing with the semen and from being ejaculated.

Dr. Fisher performed a trans-urethral unroofing of ejaculatory duct (“TURED”) and biopsy of the dome of the bladder to treat the EDO. However, Mr. Weidman claims that he never had any indications of EDO (such as painful intercourse, blood in the ejaculate and infertility), so the TURED surgery was unnecessary. Mr. Weidman, then 53, says the only problem he had was some bladder pain– and no sexual dysfunction whatsoever. Mr. Weidman alleges that further testing should have been done to confirm the EDO diagnosis before jumping into  surgery.

Not only was the TURED surgery unnecessary, claims Mr. Weidman, it was performed negligently- Dr. Fisher cut into the prostate and removed the verumontanum (a part of the prostatic urethra). In addition, the procedure caused obstructing scar tissue over the ejaculatory duct.

Mr. Weidman claims that he had post-operative internal bleeding of the prostate. There were large blood clots lodged in his bladder and penis from this. Later on, during intercourse, there was debilitating pain, with a loss of sensation during orgasm, as well as an uncontrollable stream of watery and bloody seminal fluid.

He alleges that he was was forced to endure many emergency surgeries. Eventually, a transurethral resection of his prostate (“TURP”) was done, requiring almost his entire prostate to be removed. This resulted in permanent retrograde ejaculation and continued loss of sensation of orgasm.

Significant economic and non-economic damages are claimed, and there is a loss of consortium claim for his wife.


The defense alleges that the care  provided by Dr. Fisher was in all respects appropriate and justified. The TURED procedure was needed and was well-explained to the patient. Any complications were a known risk of the procedure. 

More specifically, Dr. Fisher asserts that before coming to him for care, this patient was in constant 10/10 pain. He’d seen ten other health care providers, and been given a dozen medications for his pain– without any relief. Mr. Weidman had been already diagnosed with an enlarged and asymmetrical seminal vesicle with two cysts. 

Defendant seeks allocation of fault on a later treating urologist. Plaintiffs’ own urology expert, according to defense counsel, acknowledges that this later physician breached the standard of care and caused harm.