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

defendantnegligenceappealtrialverdictmalpracticerespondent

Related Cases

Madsen v. Park Nicollet Medical Center, 431 N.W.2d 855

Facts

Respondent Peter Madsen, on behalf of his son Justin, alleged that Dr. Norman Solberg and Park Nicollet Medical Center negligently treated Robin Madsen during her pregnancy, failing to insist on hospitalization prior to Justin's premature birth. The case involved disputes over the standard of care and whether the physician's actions caused Justin's injuries. The jury found no causal negligence, leading to the appeal.

Respondent Peter Madsen, individually and on behalf of his son, Justin Madsen, commenced this action against Dr. Norman Solberg and Park Nicollet Medical Center. His complaint alleged that the doctor, a member of the medical center, negligently rendered treatment to Robin Madsen, Justin's mother, during pregnancy by not insisting that Robin undergo hospitalization three days before Justin's premature birth on January 1, 1983.

Issue

The primary issue this appeal presents is whether the negligent nondisclosure rule, which had its genesis in Cornfeldt v. Tongen, is applicable in a medical malpractice case in which the claim of negligent nondisclosure is based on the alleged failure of the attending physician to inform the patient of the availability of additional, as distinguished from alternate, treatment, and the risk associated with not accepting the additional treatment.

The primary issue this appeal presents is whether the negligent nondisclosure rule, which had its genesis in Cornfeldt v. Tongen, 262 N.W.2d 684 (Minn.1977), is applicable in a medical malpractice case in which the claim of negligent nondisclosure is based on the alleged failure of the attending physician to inform the patient of the availability of additional, as distinguished from alternate, treatment, and the risk associated with not accepting the additional treatment.

Rule

The informed consent/negligent nondisclosure rule of medical malpractice law does not impose the duty on an attending physician to disclose to the patient either the availability of additional, but substantially the same, treatment or all potentially increased risks of injury that might ensue from rejection of the additional treatment.

Analysis

The court analyzed the facts and determined that the physician's decision to manage the pregnancy at home did not involve a choice between alternative methods of treatment. The court concluded that the treatment provided was consistent regardless of the setting, and thus the informed consent doctrine did not apply in this case. The court emphasized that the absence of negligent diagnosis or treatment was critical to the ruling.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the Court of Appeals' decision and remanded the case with instructions to reinstate the trial court's judgment in favor of the defendants.

Reversed and remanded with instructions that the trial court judgment be reinstated.

Who won?

Defendants (Dr. Solberg and Park Nicollet Medical Center) prevailed because the court found that the informed consent rule did not apply to the circumstances of the case, and the jury's verdict of no causal negligence was upheld.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Brown v. Dibbell, 227 Wis.2d 28, 595 N.W.2d 358

Forshey v. Jackson, 222 W.Va. 743, 671 S.E.2d 748

Green v. Walker, 910 F.2d 291, 59 USLW 2192

Correa v. Hospital San Francisco, 69 F.3d 1184, 33 Fed.R.Serv.3d 884

Stowell v. Huddleston, 643 F.3d 631