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

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. Hello currently just withdrew from laporte county drug court and now I have lost the woman I love which also was in drugcourt and was put in jail without a,lawyer presentfor her own safety according to the judge and they told her she could have a hearing in two weeks and now going on 30days and still in jail no court date and her public defender talks like he,s bout to just sell her up the river.

  2. I just wanted to point out that Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner, Senator Feinstein, former Senate majority leader Bill Frist, and former attorney general John Ashcroft are responsible for this rubbish. We need to keep a eye on these corrupt, arrogant, and incompetent fools.

  3. Well I guess our politicians have decided to give these idiot federal prosecutors unlimited power. Now if I guy bounces a fifty-dollar check, the U.S. attorney can intentionally wait for twenty-five years or so and have the check swabbed for DNA and file charges. These power hungry federal prosecutors now have unlimited power to mess with people. we can thank Wisconsin's Jim Sensenbrenner and Diane Feinstein, John Achcroft and Bill Frist for this one. Way to go, idiots.

  4. I wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  5. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

ADVERTISEMENT