Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

appealtestimony

negligenceappealwill

Related Cases

Felton v. Lovett, 388 S.W.3d 656, 56 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 122

Facts

Aaron Felton sought chiropractic treatment for neck pain from Brock Lovett, who manipulated Felton's neck on three occasions. After a more forceful manipulation, Felton experienced blurred vision, nausea, and dizziness, leading to a diagnosis of stroke caused by vertebral artery dissection. Felton claimed that Lovett failed to inform him of the risks associated with neck manipulation, despite expert testimony indicating that such risks are known and should be disclosed.

Lovett was well aware of the risk of stroke from chiropractic neck manipulation. Just that morning, he had been reading an article on the subject. And, he previously had a patient who suffered a vertebral dissection.

Issue

Whether the risk of vertebral artery dissection and stroke is inherent in cervical manipulations, thereby imposing a duty on the chiropractor to disclose these risks to the patient.

The issue in this case is whether the possibility that a patient, due to an undetectable physical condition, will suffer a severe, negative reaction to a procedure is a risk that is inherent in the procedure.

Rule

Health care must be based on a patient's informed consent, and a health care provider may be liable for failing to disclose the risks inherent in proposed treatment.

Health care must be based on a patient's informed consent. A health care provider may be liable for failing to disclose to a patient the risks inherent in proposed treatment.

Analysis

The court determined that the risk of vertebral artery dissection and stroke is inherent in cervical manipulations, as it is a known risk that can occur during treatment. The court emphasized that the possibility of such severe consequences is information a reasonable patient would want to know before consenting to treatment. The court rejected the argument that the risk was not inherent because it depended on Felton's pre-existing condition.

The court reasoned that the risk arose 'only when some other factor or condition was present' and 'did not exist in the procedure itself[,] nor was it inseparable from the procedure.'

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals, holding that the chiropractor had a duty to disclose the risks of cervical manipulation, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

We therefore reverse the judgment of the court of appeals.

Who won?

The patient, Aaron Felton, prevailed because the court recognized that the chiropractor had a duty to disclose inherent risks associated with the treatment.

The jury failed to find that Lovett's 'negligence … proximately cause[d] the injury in question', but found, in answer to three other questions, that: 'Lovett fail[ed] to disclose to [Felton] such risks and hazards inherent in the chiropractic treatment that could have influenced a reasonable person in making a decision to give or withhold consent to such treatment.'

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Liggon-Redding v. Estate of Sugarman, 659 F.3d 258

DeLuca by DeLuca v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 911 F.2d 941, 59 USLW 2168, 31 Fed. R. Evid. Serv. 593, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 12,570

DRD Pool Service, Inc. v. Freed, 416 Md. 46, 5 A.3d 45

K-Mart Corp. v. Gipson, 563 N.E.2d 667

White v. Beeks, 469 S.W.3d 517