MATTHIES V. MASTROMONACO case brief

 MATTHIES V. MASTROMONACO

• doctor prescribed bed rest as appropriate treatment

• plaintiff argues lack of informed consent – doc didn’t make Matthies aware of surgery option

• trial court ruled for D; P appealed; appeals court reversed for P

• this is a negligence case as opposed to a battery case

• right of self-determination paramount – p. 125 (canturbury): what would a prudent person in the patient’s position have decided if suitably informed of all perils bearing significance?

• is the doctor required to discuss options with the patient that he/she doesn’t feel is the best course of treatment?

• doctor/patient relationship based on trust and expertise, but patient should make the ultimate decision (shared responsibility)

• doctrine of shared responsibility – patient provides info, doctor has duty to evaluate info and disclose ALL courses of treatment that are medically reasonable under the circumstances. (p. 124 top)

• HOLDING: Supreme Court of NJ affirms appeals court ruling for Plaintiff

• Caveat: too much information can undercut informed consent because patient can become confused