Bennie Scott Whittington and Tina S. Whittington v. Woodie L. Mason, M.D. and Hinds Urology Clinic, P.A.

Summary

The Mississippi Supreme Court held that expert testimony is required to establish which risks of a medical procedure are material and therefore must be disclosed to obtain informed consent. Because the plaintiffs presented no expert testimony regarding the materiality of the alleged vasectomy complications, the court affirmed the directed verdict for the defendants and the Court of Appeals' judgment.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff must produce expert testimony to establish the material risks and available alternatives of a medical procedure that must be disclosed to obtain informed consent.
2. The informed-consent claim failed because the plaintiffs presented no expert testimony establishing that the claimed complications were material risks requiring disclosure, leaving no reasonable evidentiary basis for the jury to decide the issue.

Questions Presented

1. Whether expert testimony is required to establish the material risks and available alternatives that a physician must disclose before performing a medical procedure.
2. Whether the plaintiffs' informed-consent claim could be submitted to the jury without expert testimony establishing that the claimed vasectomy complications were material risks requiring disclosure.

Disposition

affirmed