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

plaintiffdefendantnegligencetrialverdictmalpracticejury instructions
plaintiffdefendantliabilityappealmalpractice

Related Cases

Winger v. CM Holdings, L.L.C., 881 N.W.2d 433
View Case »
White v. Western Title Ins. Co., 40 Cal.3d 870, 710 P.2d 309, 221 Cal.Rptr. 509
View Case »
Alloway v. General Marine Industries, L.P., 149 N.J. 620, 695 A.2d 264, 32 UCC Rep.Serv.2d 1040, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 15,007
View Case »
Moore v. Gaut, Not Reported in S.W. Rptr., 2015 WL 9584389
View Case »
Not Afraid v. State, 381 Mont. 454, 362 P.3d 71, 2015 MT 330
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Scott v. Bradford, 606 P.2d 554, 1979 OK 165

Facts

Mrs. Scott was referred to a surgeon for a hysterectomy after being diagnosed with fibroid tumors. She signed a routine consent form before the surgery but later experienced complications, including incontinence, due to a vesico-vaginal fistula. She claimed that the surgeon failed to inform her of the risks and alternatives to the surgery, asserting that had she been properly informed, she would have refused the procedure.

¶ 2 Mrs. Scott's physician advised her she had several fibroid tumors on her uterus. He referred her to defendant surgeon. Defendant admitted her to the hospital where she signed a routine consent form prior to defendant's performing a hysterectomy. After surgery, Mrs. Scott experienced problems with incontinence. She visited another physician who discovered she had a vesico-vaginal fistula which permitted urine to leak from her bladder into the vagina. This physician referred her to an urologist who, after three surgeries, succeeded in correcting her problems.

Issue

Whether Oklahoma adheres to the doctrine of informed consent as a basis for a medical malpractice action and if the jury instructions adequately conveyed the defendant's duty to disclose risks and alternatives.

The issue involved is whether Oklahoma adheres to the doctrine of informed consent as the basis of an action for medical malpractice, and if so did the present instructions adequately advise the jury of defendant's duty.

Rule

A cause of action against a physician for lack of informed consent consists of a duty to inform, causation, and injury, with the causation element requiring that the patient would have chosen no treatment or a different course had material risks been disclosed.

1. A cause of action against a physician or surgeon, based on lack of informed consent, consists of a duty to inform, causation and injury, and the element of causation requires that the patient would have chosen no treatment, or different course of treatment, as an alternative had material risks of each been made known to him; 2. the reasonable man standard is not applicable in determining whether the patient would have consented.

Analysis

The court analyzed the case under the newly established doctrine of informed consent, emphasizing that the physician has a duty to disclose all relevant material information necessary for the patient to make an informed decision. The court rejected the reasonable man standard, asserting that the patient's subjective experience and decision-making should guide the determination of causation. The jury was instructed to consider whether Mrs. Scott would have refused treatment had she been adequately informed of the risks.

The court in Canterbury v. Spence, supra, although emphasizing principles of self-determination permits liability only if non-disclosure would have affected the decision of a fictitious 'reasonable patient,' even though actual patient testifies he would have elected to forego therapy had he been fully informed.

Conclusion

The court affirmed the jury's verdict in favor of the surgeon, finding no reversible error in the trial court's instructions regarding the duty to disclose material risks and alternatives.

Affirmed.

Who won?

The surgeon prevailed in the case because the jury found that the instructions provided were sufficient and that the plaintiffs did not prove their claims of negligence regarding informed consent.

The jury found for defendant and plaintiffs appeal.

You must be