ARATO v. AVEDON
i) Plaintiff claimed that he could have changed his fiancés if knew there was such a high mortality rate. The scope of informed consent.
ii) P had checked a box on a consent form saying he wished to be informed of the complete truth rather then checking the box for the physician to burden the risk.
iii) His cancer condition worsened and he wasn’t aware of the mortality rate of pancreatic cancer
iv) He claimed he wouldn’t have undergone the rigors of the post-operative treatment
v) Dr. Avedon testified that he told Arato that the effectiveness of the FAM therapy was unproven and described its principle adverse side affects.
(1) The doctor was not negligent because he met the scope of information that was required and gave the knowledge that was required for the patient to make an informed choice.
(2) Custom- you need expert testimony
(3) The court affirmed the Cobbs v. Grant view because of statistical life expectancy data…lies outside of the significant risks associated with a given treatment, the disclosure of which is mandated by Cobbs v.Grant it falls within the scope of the additional information a killed practitioner would provide. And since the question of whether a physician should disclose such information turns on the standard of practice within the medical community, the trial court did not err in permitting expert testimony directed at that issue.
(4) This goes by a case by case basis- no general rule.