In an effort to protect the health and well-being of our clients and staff, we will be operating using the latest technology. Our team at Schochor, Federico and Staton, P.A. remains available via phone, email, mail and/or video to conduct meetings and consultations. If you have a question about your case or would like a consultation, please contact us at 410-234-1000 or visit:

We will also continue depositions, mediations, and all other legal work needed to handle your case. The health of our clients and staff is of utmost importance during this challenging time caused by the coronavirus (COVID-19). We’ve recovered over $1 billion for our clients and we won’t stop now.


Case #1102: Cancer


On September 15, the Plaintiff presented to the Defendant with a penile lesion that had just developed. At that time, the Defendant performed an examination and diagnosed the Plaintiff with a fungal infection, without benefit of any tests and/or studies. He prescribed an anti-fungal medication and explained to the Plaintiff that the medication would take some time to be effective.

The Plaintiff regularly utilized the medication as prescribed and returned to the Defendant for follow-up care on December 20. At that time, the lesion was still present and had not improved. Tragically, the Defendant again diagnosed the Plaintiff with a fungal infection without benefit of any tests and/or studies. The Plaintiff alleged that the standards of care required the Defendant to perform a biopsy or obtain a biopsy for purposes of an absolute, tissue diagnosis. However, the Defendant failed to perform any tests or studies whatsoever.

As a result, the Plaintiff’s condition continued to progress. The following year, on February 22, he presented to a hospital emergency department with complaints of penile bleeding. He was advised to see a urologist for follow-up care at that time.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff was seen by a urologist on March 6. He recommended a biopsy which was completed on April 26. The biopsy revealed poorly differentiated squamous cell carcinoma of the penis. Subsequently, the Plaintiff underwent a total penectomy on May 2. He additionally required radiation therapy as well as chemotherapy all of which proved too little too late. The Plaintiff’s cancer had been left to grow, extend and ultimately metastasize. Had the Defendant diagnosed the Plaintiff in accordance with the standards of care, the Plaintiff would have enjoyed a cure. However, as the direct result of the failure to biopsy the lesion, the Plaintiff’s penile cancer progressed from curable to incurable.

Get A Consultation
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.