Friday, October 10, 2014

Scott v. Bradford case brief summary


Scott v. Bradford case brief summary

F: Jury found for D and P appealed.
P’s Argument: D did not disclose material risks incident to the treatment prior to obtaining the consent of the P.
D’s Argument: D disclosed material risks surrounding a hysterectomy surgery and P’s alternative sufficiently.
Scott, p, sought treatment from D.
She was diagnosed with several fibroid tumors on her uterus.
She signed a routine consent to surgery form prior to the hysterectomy.
Afterward she was experiencing problems with incontinence, and she visited another doctor.
She was found to have a condition which allowed urine to leak from her bladder into her private parts.
She underwent three additional surgeries to correct her problem.
I: Whether the doctor breached a duty to disclose material risks to the patient prior to performance of the surgery?
R: doctor is liable in neg. if he does not inform the patient of his options and its risks before treating the patient Exception to the Duty to disclose:
There is no need to disclose risks that either ought to be known by everyone or are already known to the patient; or if the disclosure would alarm an emotionally upset patient; or where there is an emergency and the patient is in no condition to determine for himself whether the treatment should be administered.
A:
The duty to disclose is the first element. Then proof that patient would have chosen no treatment or a different course of treatment had the alternatives and risks been made known, thus establishing a causation.
If the patient would have elected to proceed the element of causation is missing, and so to negligence. A causal connection between the patient’s injury and the doctor’s breach of a duty to disclose exists only when the disclosure of material risks would have resulted in a decision against it.
The final element is that of an injury.
The risk must have actually materialized, AND P must have been injured as a result of submitting to the treatment.
C: Affirmed.
Co: consent is affirmative defense.
you have certain information to inform patient of the material

medical malpractice action a patient suing under the theory of informed consent must allege and prove
1. D physician failed to inform him adequately of a material risk before securing his consent to the proposed treatment 2. if he had been informed of the risks he would not have consented to the treatment

3. the adverse consequences that were not made known did in fact occur and he was injured as a result of submitting to the treatment.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Search Thousands of Case Briefs and Articles.