CHRISTMAN V. DAVIS
889 A.2d 746 (2005)
NATURE OF THE CASE: Christman (P) appealed a grant of summary judgment to Davis (D) in
P's suit in battery for lack of informed consent.
FACTS: P consulted D for gum recession and root exposure. D consented to a tissue graft.
D began the procedure and determined that instead he would perform a flap procedure. This
procedure follows the same preliminary step as the graft, but after incision, the
periodontist applies a protein, Emdogain, to the gum to help it adhere to the tooth, and no
graft is made. P was surprised that he did not receive a graft. The procedure did not
achieve full results and P still had to undergo a tissue graft. P sued D for lack of
informed consent, and battery. D filed for summary judgment in that P was not battered
because the flap procedure was within the bounds of P's consent. The court concluded that D
performed surgery on an area to which P consented, and choosing to perform a less-invasive
procedure did not commit battery. P appealed.
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