LARGEY V. ROTHMAN
540 A.2d 504 (1988)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Largey (P) appealed a decision which affirmed a trial court
determination that Rothman (D) had provided P with sufficient information to amount to
informed consent.
FACTS: P's gynecologist, Dr. Glassman, detected a 'vague mass' in her right breast. The
doctor referred P to Rothman (D) a surgeon. D expressed concern that the anomalies on the
mammograms might be cancer and recommended a biopsy. P submitted to the biopsy procedure
after receiving a confirmatory second opinion from a Dr. Slattery. D removed a piece of the
suspect mass from P's breast and excised the nodes. The biopsies showed that both specimens
were benign. P then developed a right arm and hand lymphedema, a swelling caused by
inadequate drainage in the lymphatic system. The condition resulted from the excision of the
lymph nodes. D did not advise P of this risk. P's experts testified that d should have
informed P that lymphedema was a risk of the operation. D's experts testified that it was
too rare to be discussed with a patient. Ps sued claiming that they were never told that the
operation would include removal of the nodes and therefore that procedure constituted an
unauthorized battery. Alternatively, they claimed that even if they had authorized the node
excision, D was negligent in failing to warn them of the risk of lymphedema and therefore
their consent was uninformed. The jury specifically rejected both claims because the trial
court instructed on the reasonable physician standard of informed consent. Ps appealed and
the appeal court affirmed and P appealed again.
ISSUE:
RULE OF LAW:
HOLDING AND DECISION:
LEGAL ANALYSIS:
Get
free access to the entire content for Mac, PC or Online
for 2-3 days and free samples
of all kinds of products.
for 2-3 days and free samples of all kinds of products.
https://bsmsphd.com
© 2007-2016 Abn Study Partner
No comments:
Post a Comment