Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hospital case brief summary
88 N.W.2d 186 (1958)
The patient was referred to the doctor in this case after he was informed that he had an enlarged prostate gland and bladder soreness.
The doctor told the patient that he wanted to make a cystoscopic exam. This was because he was not certain of the exact nature of the patient's ailment.
The doctor testified that he did not inform the patient at the office visit that any examination that the doctor wsa going to make had anything to do with the spermatic cords of the patient.
The doctor performed the cystoscopic exam, and afterwards the doctor told the patient that he should have a transurethral prostatic resection.
The next day the operation was performed.
During this operation, the patient's spermatic cords were severed.
The doctor testified that he was uncertain if he had informed the patient of this part of the procedure.
DISCUSSION
The court reversed the lower court's holding on appeal.
The court held that whether or not the patient consented to severing his spermatic cords was a fact of question that was for the jury to decide. It was error for the trial court to dismiss the action.
HOLDING
In a situation where there is no immediate emergency, the patient should be informed before the operation takes place that his spermatic cords are going to be severed.
CONCLUSION
The dismissal of the patient and the wife's action against the doctor was reversed by the court.
A new trial was granted.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
.
88 N.W.2d 186 (1958)
CASE SYNOPSIS
The plaintiffs in this case are a patient and his wife.
They challenged a decision from a Minnesota district court.
The district court had denied the plaintiffs' alternative motion to vacate the dismissal of an action against a doctor (defendant) or for a new trial.
The patient and his wife filed an action for damages against the doctor.
The action was for alleged assault and/or unauthorized operation by the doctor on a patient.
CASE FACTSThe plaintiffs in this case are a patient and his wife.
They challenged a decision from a Minnesota district court.
The district court had denied the plaintiffs' alternative motion to vacate the dismissal of an action against a doctor (defendant) or for a new trial.
The patient and his wife filed an action for damages against the doctor.
The action was for alleged assault and/or unauthorized operation by the doctor on a patient.
The patient was referred to the doctor in this case after he was informed that he had an enlarged prostate gland and bladder soreness.
The doctor told the patient that he wanted to make a cystoscopic exam. This was because he was not certain of the exact nature of the patient's ailment.
The doctor testified that he did not inform the patient at the office visit that any examination that the doctor wsa going to make had anything to do with the spermatic cords of the patient.
The doctor performed the cystoscopic exam, and afterwards the doctor told the patient that he should have a transurethral prostatic resection.
The next day the operation was performed.
During this operation, the patient's spermatic cords were severed.
The doctor testified that he was uncertain if he had informed the patient of this part of the procedure.
DISCUSSION
The court reversed the lower court's holding on appeal.
The court held that whether or not the patient consented to severing his spermatic cords was a fact of question that was for the jury to decide. It was error for the trial court to dismiss the action.
HOLDING
In a situation where there is no immediate emergency, the patient should be informed before the operation takes place that his spermatic cords are going to be severed.
CONCLUSION
The dismissal of the patient and the wife's action against the doctor was reversed by the court.
A new trial was granted.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials
. 
No comments:
Post a Comment