The Texas Supreme Court has reinstated a $740,000 judgment against a chiropractor whose patient suffered a stroke due to an “undetectable” physical condition.
The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether the federal Gonzalez Act waives governmental immunity for battery claims against a Navy doctor who allegedly performed cataract surgery without the patient’s informed consent.
A doctor who made a non-negligent misdiagnosis regarding an emergency room patient with stroke-like symptoms could be liable for failing to inform the patient about the availability of a non-invasive diagnostic test that would have definitively identified his condition, the Wisconsin Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.
An informed consent plaintiff was required to produce expert testimony showing it to be more likely than not that the undisclosed greater risk of nerve damage from back surgery proximately caused his chronic pain, the Ohio Supreme Court has ruled in reinstating a directed verdict.
An eye patient could not sue the federal government for battery after suffering complications from cataract surgery performed by a Navy surgeon, the 9th Circuit has ruled in affirming a dismissal.
A juror’s vocational knowledge of medical records and informed consent as a physician’s office manager did not constitute extraneous prejudicial information necessitating a new trial, the Arkansas Court of Appeals has ruled.
A medical malpractice plaintiff could not succeed on a claim based on lack of informed consent because she failed to establish causation under a “reasonable person” standard, the Delaware Supreme Court has ruled in affirming judgment.
A doctor could be liable under a theory of failure to obtain informed consent – even though the claim involved his alleged failure to fully explain treatment options rather than a violation of the “physical integrity” of his patient, Maryland’s highest court has ruled.