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
- 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.
- 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.
- The consent form was not invalid merely because Nurse Belic witnessed Harrold's signature rather than Dr. Artwohl personally witnessing it.
- The consent form was not defective merely because it did not recite the specific information Dr. Artwohl claimed to have discussed with Harrold.
- 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
- 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.
- Whether the disputed information was material under Alaska's reasonable-patient informed-consent standard.
- Whether the informed-consent form was invalid because it was witnessed by a nurse rather than the treating physician.
- Whether the omission of specific disclosures from the written consent form created a genuine issue of material fact.
- 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 PDFLoading document…