ILNews

Incurred risk not malpractice defense

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
A doctor cannot use evidence of a patient's previous surgeries or pursue an incurred-risk defense against a medical malpractice suit, the Court of Appeals ruled today.

In Brenda Spar v. Jin S. Cha, M.D., No. 45A05-0611-CV-683, Spar appealed the jury decision in favor of Dr. Cha in her medical malpractice claim against the OB/GYN for a surgery he performed on her.

Spar previously had been in a serious automobile accident and as a result had numerous abdominal surgeries. When she decided to have a baby, she went to Cha who recommended a diagnostic laparoscopy to examine her fallopian tubes. Spar scheduled the surgery and was given a consent form the day of the surgery. As she was wheeled into the operating room, Cha discussed the procedure with her.

Three days later Spar became ill. Her bowel had been perforated during the surgery, resulting in a serious infection. Spar filed a proposed complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance.

At trial, Spar argued Cha's treatment was negligent and he failed to obtain her informed consent. Part of Cha's defense was evidence of Spar's consent to previous surgeries, which Spar asked the trial court to exclude. The trial court allowed the evidence.

Members of the medical review panel that had previously viewed the case testified the doctor should not have performed the laparoscopy because of Spar's scaring and that Cha failed to obtain her informed consent. Cha's defense was that Spar was aware of the risks of the surgery because of her previous surgeries.

Judge Melissa May wrote that to allow a doctor to use the defense of incurred risk to defeat a claim that the doctor failed to obtain a patient's informed consent "would undermine the policy promoted by the doctrine of informed consent" because physicians have a duty to make a reasonable disclosure of material facts relevant to a decision the patient must make. A layperson will not know all of the necessary medical facts and risks as a doctor does. The trial court erred in allowing Cha to use the defense of incurred risk to avoid a negligence claim.

The trial court also erred when it allowed evidence of Spar's consent to previous surgeries. Cha believed the evidence showed Spar was aware of the risks of abdominal surgery and therefore incurred those risks. Because the incurred risk defense is not allowed in this case, the evidence should not have been allowed, wrote Judge May. The risks of each medical procedure vary, and the patient has the right to be told about those risks.

"To permit (Spar's) consent to prior surgeries to be used to negate proximate cause binds Spar to her previous decisions regarding unrelated surgeries and denies her the opportunity to make a choice based on the particular facts surrounding the laparoscopy," she wrote.

The Court of Appeals remanded for a new trial.

Judge Carr Darden dissented in a separate opinion, stating he agreed with the trial court that incurred risk should be an available defense for the doctor. Evidence of Spar's consent to previous abdominal surgeries was relevant to Cha's defense and should be admissible.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT