INFORMED CONSENT
Holt v. Alexander, No. W2003-02541-COA-R3-CV (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 13, 2005)
A
patient went to the hospital suffering from a kidney stone. The treating
physician told the patient that he had consulted with his urologist and the
urologist had approved an invasive procedure to remove the stone. The patient
signed the consent form and underwent the surgery. In fact, the treating physician
had not consulted with the urologist, so the patient sued for medical battery.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the physician because,
at trial, the urologist informed the court that had he been consulted, he would
have approved the procedure. The appellate court reversed, finding that the
treating physician's alleged misrepresentation was sufficient to call into
question the validity of the patient's consent.