Maria A. Brady and Robert Brady, Jr. v. William M. Urbas, D.P.M.

Summary

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania held that evidence that a medical-malpractice plaintiff affirmatively consented to treatment after being informed of its risks is generally irrelevant to a negligence claim. The Court rejected a per se rule that all informed-consent information is inadmissible, recognizing that some risk-related evidence may be relevant to establishing the standard of care or for limited impeachment purposes. Because the consent evidence may have confused the jury into treating consent as acceptance of negligent treatment, the Court affirmed the order granting a new trial.

Holdings

1. In a medical-malpractice trial asserting negligence but not lack of informed consent, evidence that the patient agreed to undergo treatment after being informed of its risks is generally irrelevant to whether the physician negligently selected or performed the treatment and should be excluded.
2. The court declined to adopt a broad rule that every aspect of informed-consent information is always irrelevant in a medical-malpractice case. Certain information about risks or physician-patient communications may be relevant if it tends to establish the applicable standard of care, including when the standard requires disclosure of particular risks.
3. The admission and use of the consent evidence warranted a new trial because there was a substantial possibility that the jury's no-negligence verdict rested on an improper consideration of the patient's consent.

Questions Presented

1. Whether evidence that a patient was informed of and affirmatively consented to the risks of surgery is relevant and admissible in a medical-negligence action that does not assert lack of informed consent.
2. Whether the Superior Court properly vacated the defense verdict and remanded for a new trial based on the admission and use of the consent-related evidence.

Disposition

affirmed