A Vitiated Consent Opens The Door To Medical Battery Suit
posted on November 1st, 2005 in Informed Consent by clintWhat happens when the patient repudiates his consent for surgery? The result is a medical battery claim. In Holt v. Alexander, 2005 WL 94370 (Tenn.Ct.App.), the plaintiff went to the hospital suffering from a kidney stone, and was admitted for observation. The next morning, he was told that he was scheduled to undergo a procedure to remove the stone. The defendant physician came to see the plaintiff and told him that he would be performing an invasive procedure, which required significant recovery time. According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff then asked the defendant physician whether his treating urologist “had approved of the procedure.” The defendant physician replied that he had spoken with the treating urologist and that he had approved the procedure. As a result, the plaintiff signed a consent form. The surgery ensued. The plaintiff later learned that the defendant physician had not spoken with his treating urologist, and the same urologist had not approved the procedure. The plaintiff sued the defendant for medical battery. He has repudiated his consent. The Court of Appeals held that a fact issue existed as to whether the plaintiff’s consent for surgery was vitiated by the defendant’s failure to get approval for the surgery from the treating urologist.