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

appealtrialjury instructions

Related Cases

Wecker v. Amend, 22 Kan.App.2d 498, 918 P.2d 658, 65 USLW 2059

Facts

Cori Wecker was advised by her gynecologist, Dr. Douglas Amend, to undergo laser surgery after a biopsy revealed a condyloma caused by HPV. Wecker claimed that Amend did not inform her of alternative treatments, including the option of doing nothing, which could have been a reasonable choice. After the surgery, Wecker experienced excessive bleeding, leading to further medical complications. An expert testified that it was a departure from accepted medical standards to provide only one treatment option without discussing alternatives.

Amend explained to Wecker that the condyloma might be precancerous and recommended laser surgery to remove it.

Issue

Did the trial court err in failing to instruct the jury on the physician's duty to inform the patient of alternative treatments, including the option of no treatment, in a case of alleged lack of informed consent?

Wecker first argues that the trial court failed to properly instruct the jury on her theory of lack of informed consent.

Rule

The doctrine of informed consent requires a physician to make a reasonable disclosure to a patient of medically acceptable alternative treatments, including the option of no treatment. Whether an alternative treatment is medically acceptable is a factual question for the jury.

The doctrine of informed consent requires a physician to make a reasonable disclosure to a patient of medically acceptable alternative treatments, including the option of no treatment.

Analysis

The Court of Appeals found that the trial court should have modified the jury instructions to reflect the physician's duty to inform the patient of all reasonable treatment options, including the possibility of doing nothing. The court emphasized that the jury needed proper instructions to determine whether the option of no treatment was a medically acceptable alternative. The failure to provide these instructions constituted prejudicial error.

On the facts of this case, it was prejudicial error for the trial court not to include the requested modifications to the jury instruction on informed consent.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's decision and remanded the case for a new trial, emphasizing the need for proper jury instructions regarding informed consent.

Reversed and remanded for new trial.

Who won?

Cori Wecker prevailed in the appeal because the Court of Appeals found that the trial court had erred in its jury instructions regarding informed consent.

Wecker prevailed in the appeal because the Court of Appeals found that the trial court had erred in its jury instructions regarding informed consent.

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

A.B.C. Needlecraft Co. v. Dun & Bradstreet, Inc., 245 F.2d 775

Eli Investments, LLC v. Silver Slipper Casino Venture, LLC, 118 So.3d 151

Magnuson by Mabe v. Kelsey-Hayes Co., 844 S.W.2d 448, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 13,502

Dickinson v. Edwards, 105 Wash.2d 457, 716 P.2d 814

White v. Yup, 85 Nev. 527, 458 P.2d 617