ILNews

Court rules on incurred risk in malpractice suit

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled today that, in general, incurred risk isn't a defense to medical malpractice based on negligence or lack of informed consent. It also ruled a patient's prior consents to similar surgeries were relevant and admissible at trial.

In Brenda Spar v. Jin S. Cha, M.D., No. 45S05-0906-CV-273, Brenda Spar brought a medical malpractice action against Dr. Jin Cha after she suffered complications from a laparoscopy to determine fertility issues. Spar signed a consent form to "Video Laparoscopy Possible Laparotomy," which stated she had been told risks and benefits and possible complications of the surgery. The morning of her surgery, Cha explained the surgery and possible complications. Cha performed a laparoscopy instead of laparotomy based on comments from Spar prior to surgery.

Spar had previous surgeries to her abdomen following a severe car accident and to remove her gallbladder and gallstones. After the surgery by Cha, she developed post-operative complications and had to have part of her bowel removed during emergency surgery. She was hospitalized for nearly six weeks and developed peritonitis, cysts, and fistulas.

A medical review panel found Cha failed to meet the standard of care and the case proceeded to trial under two theories: negligence in failing to employ alternative diagnostic procedures in lieu of surgery, and failure to obtain Spar's informed consent to the chosen course of treatment.

The trial court admitted evidence by Cha over Spar's objection that he obtained Spar's informed consent for the laparoscopy based on her informed consent to previous surgeries by other doctors. The trial court denied Spar's motion for judgment on the evidence on the issue of incurred risk and gave a jury instruction on it. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of Cha.

On appeal, Spar argued the evidence at trial didn't establish any form of incurred risk as to either her claim for negligent advice or her claim for lack of informed consent. The Supreme Court agreed with the Indiana Court of Appeals that assumption of risk has little legitimate application in the medical malpractice context. A patient is entitled to expect the services will be rendered in accordance with the standard of care, no matter how risky the procedure may be, wrote Justice Theodore Boehm. The disparity in knowledge between professionals and their clients generally precludes recipients from knowing whether a professional's conduct is in fact negligent.

Even if incurred risk is an available defense in some cases, the record in the instant case is devoid of any evidence Spar somehow incurred the risk of negligent care. The doctor's incurred-risk defense to Spar's claim of negligent advice shouldn't have been submitted to the jury.

Incurred risk was also not a defense to Spar's lack-of-informed-consent claim. A waiver of informed consent doesn't assume risks associated with negligent performance of the underlying procedure or treatment, the justice wrote. And, there's no evidence Spar waived her right to informed consent or otherwise assumed risks related to negligent nondisclosure. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.

The justices also determined the trial court properly admitted evidence of Spar's consent to prior surgeries by other doctors.

"If Spar had been made aware of typical complications by Dr. McKinnon and Dr. Shabeeb and already had a thorough appreciation of the common risks from invasive abdominal procedures, the jury was entitled to take her knowledge into consideration when assessing whether she would have declined surgery in light of more comprehensive disclosure," wrote Justice Boehm.

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  2. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

  3. This outbreak illustrates the absurdity of the extreme positions taken by today's liberalism, specifically individualism and the modern cult of endless personal "freedom." Ebola reminds us that at some point the person's own "freedom" to do this and that comes into contact with the needs of the common good and "freedom" must be curtailed. This is not rocket science, except, today there is nonstop propaganda elevating individual preferences over the common good, so some pundits have a hard time fathoming the obvious necessity of quarantine in some situations....or even NATIONAL BORDERS...propagandists have also amazingly used this as another chance to accuse Western nations of "racism" which is preposterous and offensive. So one the one hand the idolatry of individualism has to stop and on the other hand facts people don't like that intersect with race-- remain facts nonetheless. People who respond to facts over propaganda do better in the long run. We call it Truth. Sometimes it seems hard to find.

  4. It would be hard not to feel the Kramers' anguish. But Catholic Charities, by definition, performed due diligence and held to the statutory standard of care. No good can come from punishing them for doing their duty. Should Indiana wish to change its laws regarding adoption agreements and or putative fathers, the place for that is the legislature and can only apply to future cases. We do not apply new laws to past actions, as the Kramers seem intent on doing, to no helpful end.

  5. I am saddened to hear about the loss of Zeff Weiss. He was an outstanding member of the Indianapolis legal community. My thoughts are with his family.

ADVERTISEMENT