Harrold v. Artwohl

132 P.3d 276 (Alaska 2006) · Supreme Court of Alaska · March 31, 2006 · No. S-11638

Summary

The Alaska Supreme Court held that a patient’s informed-consent claim could not be resolved on summary judgment because evidence raised genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the surgeon explained that a CT scan could determine with near certainty whether appendicitis was present. The court concluded that a reasonable jury could find this information material to the patient’s decision to undergo an appendectomy. The court reversed and remanded for further proceedings.

Holdings

  1. Harrold's affidavit, viewed in the light most favorable to him, raised a genuine factual dispute as to whether Dr. Artwohl informed him that a CT scan could effectively rule in or rule out appendicitis with approximately ninety-eight percent accuracy.
  2. Whether a reasonable patient would consider information about the CT scan's near-certainty in determining whether to undergo immediate surgery was a material factual question for the jury.
  3. The consent form was not invalid merely because Nurse Belic witnessed Harrold's signature rather than Dr. Artwohl personally witnessing it.
  4. The consent form was not defective merely because it did not recite the specific information Dr. Artwohl claimed to have discussed with Harrold.
  5. The sister's affidavit did not create a genuine factual dispute because Dr. Artwohl's post-surgical question about prior x-rays did not reasonably imply that he lacked knowledge of Harrold's recent CT scan.

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Harrold presented a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether Dr. Artwohl disclosed that a CT scan could nearly conclusively determine whether immediate surgery was necessary.
  2. Whether the disputed information was material under Alaska's reasonable-patient informed-consent standard.
  3. Whether the informed-consent form was invalid because it was witnessed by a nurse rather than the treating physician.
  4. Whether the omission of specific disclosures from the written consent form created a genuine issue of material fact.
  5. Whether Harrold's sister's affidavit created a genuine factual dispute regarding Dr. Artwohl's knowledge of the prior CT scan.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded

Cases Cited (9)

  • Kaiser v. Umialik Insurance Co., 108 P.3d 876, 879 (Alaska 2005)(followed)
  • Sonneman v. State, 969 P.2d 632, 635 (Alaska 1998)(followed)
  • French v. Jadon, Inc., 911 P.2d 20, 23 (Alaska 1996)(followed)
  • Wassink v. Hawkins, 763 P.2d 971, 973 (Alaska 1988)(followed)
  • Parker v. Tomera, 89 P.3d 761, 769 (Alaska 2004)(followed)
  • Korman v. Mallin, 858 P.2d 1145, 1149, 1151 (Alaska 1993)(followed)
  • Marsingill v. O'Malley, 58 P.3d 495, 503-504 (Alaska 2002)(followed)
  • Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 788 (D.C. Cir. 1972)(followed)
  • Ward v. Lutheran Hospitals & Homes Society of America, Inc., 963 P.2d 1031, n. 12 (Alaska 1998)(distinguished)

Cited In (0)

No citing cases on record yet.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…