Hoofnel v. Segal

Summary

The Supreme Court of Kentucky affirmed summary judgment for physicians in a medical battery action concerning the removal of the plaintiff's uterus and ovaries during colorectal cancer surgery. The majority held that the signed consent form, including authorization for medically necessary additional procedures, established consent and left no genuine issue of material fact. A dissent argued that conflicting evidence about the scope and circumstances of consent required resolution by a jury.

Holdings

1. Medical battery is an intentional tort containing the essential elements of common-law battery, and the plaintiff must prove lack of consent.
2. Consent to medical treatment may be express or implied from the circumstances; the relevant inquiry is whether the particular patient manifested consent, not whether a reasonable person would have consented.
3. A consent form is a component of the consent process and is not necessarily conclusive, but a clear and unambiguous signed consent form is significant evidence and may establish consent as a matter of law when the surrounding circumstances do not create a genuine factual dispute.
4. Summary judgment for the physicians was proper because the signed consent form established consent to the oophorectomy and hysterectomy and the surrounding circumstances did not create a genuine issue of material fact.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the signed consent form and surrounding circumstances established consent to the oophorectomy and hysterectomy as a matter of law.
2. Whether a genuine issue of material fact remained regarding consent, precluding summary judgment on the medical battery claim.
3. Whether the medical battery claim was governed by informed-consent negligence principles requiring expert testimony.

Disposition

affirmed