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

lawsuitdefendantappealtrialsummary judgmentmalpracticecredibility
lawsuitplaintiffdefendanttrialsummary judgmentmalpractice

Related Cases

Robins v. Katz, 151 Mich.App. 802, 391 N.W.2d 495
View Case »
Schwartz v. Brownlee, 253 Va. 159, 482 S.E.2d 827
View Case »
Allison v. Brown, 293 Va. 617, 801 S.E.2d 761
View Case »
McKinney v. Schlatter, 118 Ohio App.3d 328, 692 N.E.2d 1045
View Case »
Ashe v. Radiation Oncology Associates, 9 S.W.3d 119
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Parris v. Limes, 277 P.3d 1259, 2012 OK 18

Facts

The patient filed a lawsuit against various medical providers for malpractice related to the surgical removal of his prostate, which was later found to be cancer-free. The patient claimed that he was not informed of this fact and continued to undergo unnecessary post-surgical treatment. The trial court dismissed the case initially due to the absence of a medical expert, but this decision was reversed on appeal, leading to further proceedings.

The patient filed a lawsuit against various medical providers for malpractice related to the surgical removal of his prostate, which was later found to be cancer-free.

Issue

Did the surgeon breach his duty to inform the patient that the surgically removed prostate was cancer-free, and did this breach result in the patient suffering injury due to continued post-surgical treatment?

Did the surgeon breach his duty to inform the patient that the surgically removed prostate was cancer-free, and did this breach result in the patient suffering injury due to continued post-surgical treatment?

Rule

A physician has an affirmative duty to inform a patient of his options and their attendant risks, and failure to do so can result in a claim for lack of informed consent if the patient suffers injury as a result.

A physician has an affirmative duty to inform a patient of his options and their attendant risks, and failure to do so can result in a claim for lack of informed consent if the patient suffers injury as a result.

Analysis

The court analyzed whether the surgeon had adequately informed the patient about the cancer-free status of the prostate before continuing with post-surgical treatment. It was determined that there was a factual dispute regarding whether the surgeon disclosed this critical information, which is essential for the patient's informed consent. The court emphasized that the jury must assess the credibility of the patient's claim that he would not have consented to treatment had he been properly informed.

In applying the foregoing law to the summary judgment record in the case at hand, we first observe that all facts and inferences presented in the summary judgment record must be viewed in a light most favorable to the non-movant.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants on the medical malpractice claims but reversed the summary judgment in favor of the surgeon regarding the informed consent claim, allowing the case to proceed to trial.

In conclusion, we hold the trial court properly granted summary judgment to the defendants on plaintiff's medical malpractice claims and to Dr. Barnes and Urological Associates, Inc. on plaintiff's claim for 'concealment' as a fraud-based theory of recovery.

Who won?

The prevailing party was the patient, as the Supreme Court allowed his claim against the surgeon for lack of informed consent to proceed to trial, indicating that there were unresolved factual issues.

The prevailing party was the patient, as the Supreme Court allowed his claim against the surgeon for lack of informed consent to proceed to trial, indicating that there were unresolved factual issues.

You must be