Saturday, May 17, 2014

Arato v. Avedon case brief summary

i)        Plaintiff claimed that he could have changed his fianc├ęs 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.
vi)    OUTCOME
(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.

1 comment:

  1. Arato v. Avedon
    - treatment following surgery, checked box on form that he wanted to be informed of the truth about the condition and that he didn’t want the physician to bear the burden
    - high mortality rate of the treatment wasn’t disclosed to him
    - Dr didn’t inform since his condition would have worsened if he had been informed
    - Patient claimed the information was material for his decision to undergo the treatment
    o His claim he was unable to get finances in order and arrange life
    - Dr meet the scope of the information that was required (material knowledge patient needs in order to make an informed choice)
    - No duty of dr to provide information that effects choices made beyond whether to undergo treatment or not, not responsible for making sure established finances- doesn’t include issues that are non-medical


The Evolution of Legal Marketing: From Billboards to Digital Leads Over the last couple of decades, the face of legal marketing has changed a l...