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

damages

plaintiffdamagesliabilitymalpracticevisa

Related Cases

Lugenbuhl v. Dowling, 701 So.2d 447, 96-1575 (La. 10/10/97)

Facts

The patient had a history of hernia problems and specifically requested that surgical mesh be used during his hernia repair by Dr. Dowling. He signed a consent form indicating his desire for mesh to be used. During the surgery, Dr. Dowling decided not to use mesh based on his assessment of the patient's condition. Following the surgery, the patient developed a large herniated area, which was later repaired by another surgeon using mesh. The patient claimed that Dr. Dowling's failure to use mesh caused his subsequent herniation and additional surgeries.

In November 1987, plaintiff consulted Dr. John Dowling, a general surgeon, to repair an intracostal incisional hernia that had developed from 1985 coronary bypass surgery. Plaintiff had a history of hernia problems, having undergone three unsuccessful inguinal hernia repairs by another surgeon between 1963 and 1974 before the surgeon performed a successful procedure in 1975 using surgical mesh.

Issue

The main legal issues were whether Dr. Dowling properly informed the patient about the procedure and its risks, and whether the lack of informed consent or the failure to use mesh caused the patient's subsequent injuries.

The principal issues before this court are (1) whether the doctor, in view of the patient's expressed desire that mesh be used in the surgery, properly informed the patient regarding the nature of the proposed procedure and its advisability and attendant risks with and without the use of mesh, and (2) whether plaintiff proved a causal connection between (a) either any lack of informed consent or the doctor's failure to use mesh and (b) the damages awarded for the subsequent additional surgery.

Rule

The court held that the breach of duty to provide information, rather than battery, is the applicable theory of recovery in informed consent cases. The patient must prove that the physician's failure to disclose material information caused the claimed damages.

We therefore reject battery-based liability in lack of informed consent cases (which include no-consent cases) in favor of liability based on breach of the doctor's duty to provide the patient with material information concerning the medical procedure.

Analysis

The court found that Dr. Dowling failed to adequately inform the patient about the decision-making process regarding the use of mesh during surgery. Although the jury found that the physician's actions constituted a breach of duty, the court determined that the patient did not prove a causal connection between the physician's failure to use mesh and the subsequent herniation.

Under these circumstances, it was incumbent upon the doctor to explain to the patient the advantages and disadvantages in the use of mesh, the attendant risks, and the necessity of reserving the decision on the use of mesh to the surgeon during the course of the operation.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court amended the judgment, reducing the damages awarded to the patient from $300,000 to $5,000, concluding that while the physician failed to obtain informed consent, this failure did not cause the patient's injuries.

In summary, we reduce the jury's total award of damages, which included the damages attributable to the massive herniation that was not proved to have been caused by the doctor's failure to provide material information and to obtain adequate informed consent, from $300,000 to $5,000.

Who won?

The prevailing party was Dr. John Dowling, as the Supreme Court ultimately reduced the damages awarded to the patient and found that the physician's actions did not cause the claimed injuries.

The jury's determination of liability based on medical malpractice must be set aside.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Goldberg v. Boone, 396 Md. 94, 912 A.2d 698

Becker v. Janinski, 27 Abb. N. Cas. 45, 15 N.Y.S. 675

Sosa v. Paulos, 924 P.2d 357, 65 USLW 2216

Torretti v. Main Line Hospitals, Inc., 580 F.3d 168, Med & Med GD (CCH) P 303,110

Siopes v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan, Inc., 130 Hawai‘i 437, 312 P.3d 869