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.