February 19, 2016

Scott v. Bradford | Case Brief - 606 P.2d 554 (Okla. 1979) - Supreme Court of Oklahoma

FACTS: Plaintiff had fibroid tumors in her uterus and had a hysterectomy. After the surgery she experienced incontinence. After three additional surgeries after seeing a urologist the problem was corrected.

HISTORY: Jury found for the defendant with instructions the Plaintiff objected to.

ISSUE: Does Oklahoma adhere to a doctrine of informed consent?


RATIONALE: There is negligence if the physician has obtained the patient's consent but has breached his duty to perform. 

Full disclosure of all material risks must be made (a risk material is anything which may affect the patient's decision).

If disclosure would be detrimental to the patient then the physician may withhold information. Privilege is invoked in an emergency situation.

The cause of action based on lack of informed consent:
1) the duty to inform
2) the causation
3) injury

If the patient testifies he would have had the treatment anyway there is no cause of action. 

In summary Plaintiff must prove: 

1) defendant physician failed to inform him adequately of material risk before securing his consent to the proposed treatment

2) is he had been informed of the risks he would not have consented to the treatment

3) the adverse consequences that were not made known did in fact occur and he was injured as a result of submitting to the treatment