Birth Injury At Roseville Medical Facility Due To Malpractice

(Please note: the names and locations of all parties have been changed to protect the confidentiality of the proceedings.)

THE ISSUE OF INFORMED CONSENT

The defendant says that there is virtually no testimony on the issue of informed consent except Dr. Linda X.’s testimony that she failed to obtain the patient’s informed consent to use the vacuum. What more is needed?

Although the plaintiff was precluded from offering testimony that she would not have consented to the vacuum’s use had the risks and benefits been properly explained, there appears to be abundant testimony from the defendant himself to submit this theory of liability to the jury for its consideration. The Court is well aware no expert witness testimony is required on the issue of informed consent. Ardto v. Avedon, (1993) 5 Cal. 4th 1172.

Furthermore, the Court will recall that plaintiffs presented three distinct theories of liability against Dr. Linda X. (1) Her negligence caused the medical emergency; (2) She was negligent in management of the medical emergency; and (3) She failed to obtain Mrs. Brown’s informed consent to employ the vacuum device at mid-pelvis.

Because of the multiple theories of negligence offered by plaintiffs, this jury could have found Dr. Linda X. negligent on any or all of the issues. With multiple contentions of negligence, but no special interrogatory to the jury asking which specific act or acts they deemed negligent, defendant cannot now challenge the jury’s findings. They may have found her not negligent on the informed consent issue. We will never know.

For more information you are welcome to contact Sacramento personal injury lawyer, Moseley Collins.