Featured Chrome Extensions:

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

negligenceappealtrialverdicttestimonymotionmalpracticecomparative negligencejury instructions
negligenceappealtrialverdictmotioncomparative negligencejury instructions

Related Cases

Chapel v. Allison, 241 Mont. 83, 785 P.2d 204
View Case »
Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229, 502 P.2d 1, 104 Cal.Rptr. 505
View Case »
Shannon v. McNulty, 718 A.2d 828
View Case »
Tonsic v. Wagner, 458 Pa. 246, 329 A.2d 497
View Case »
Wendland v. Sparks, 574 N.W.2d 327
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Oghia v. Hollan, 363 S.W.3d 30

Facts

On January 16, 2007, Edwin Scott Hollan sought treatment for a kidney stone at Kentucky River Medical Center, where Dr. Oghia attempted to remove the stone using a ureteroscope. After complications arose, Dr. Oghia performed open surgery, during which he discovered damage to Hollan's ureter. Unable to repair the damage, Hollan was transferred to the University of Kentucky Medical Center, where he ultimately underwent kidney removal surgery. Hollan filed a malpractice suit against Dr. Oghia, claiming he was not adequately informed of the risks and alternative treatments prior to the surgery.

On January 16, 2007, Edwin Scott Hollan sought treatment for a kidney stone at Kentucky River Medical Center, where Dr. Oghia attempted to remove the stone using a ureteroscope.

Issue

Did the trial court err in its jury instructions regarding the duty to inform and in denying the comparative negligence instruction requested by Dr. Oghia?

Did the trial court err in its jury instructions regarding the duty to inform and in denying the comparative negligence instruction requested by Dr. Oghia?

Rule

A physician has a duty to inform patients of the risks associated with medical procedures, and separate jury instructions may be warranted when there are distinct duties of care. Comparative negligence may apply in informed consent cases, but only in extraordinary circumstances.

A physician has a duty to inform patients of the risks associated with medical procedures, and separate jury instructions may be warranted when there are distinct duties of care.

Analysis

The court found that the evidence supported the issuance of two separate jury instructions regarding Dr. Oghia's duties: to treat Hollan competently and to disclose the risks of the procedure. The jury's determination that Dr. Oghia failed to adequately inform Hollan was consistent with the expert testimony presented. The court also concluded that the circumstances did not warrant a comparative negligence instruction, as Hollan's reliance on Dr. Oghia's disclosures was reasonable given the nature of the physician-patient relationship.

The court found that the evidence supported the issuance of two separate jury instructions regarding Dr. Oghia's duties: to treat Hollan competently and to disclose the risks of the procedure.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Hollan, concluding that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in denying Dr. Oghia's motion for a mistrial.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of Hollan, concluding that the trial court did not err in its jury instructions or in denying Dr. Oghia's motion for a mistrial.

Who won?

Edwin Scott Hollan prevailed in the case because the jury found that Dr. Oghia had not adequately disclosed the risks of the surgery, which constituted a breach of his duty to inform.

Edwin Scott Hollan prevailed in the case because the jury found that Dr. Oghia had not adequately disclosed the risks of the surgery.

You must be