Coryell v. Smith

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• noting that the appropriate question is: “Would a reasonably prudent person in the plaintiffs position, after being properly informed, have nonetheless proceeded with the proposed treatment?”
• plaintiff claimed she would not have undergone back surgery had her doctor informed her there was a possibility of developing necrosis and a large scar
• the question of proximate cause in an informed consent context requires the jury to use their knowledge, experience and common sense to decide whether, after proper disclosure, a prudent person would have proceeded with the proposed treatment
• “[W]hat is required to prove the element of proximate causation in an action based upon a physician’s failure to disclose differs significantly from what is required to prove that same element in an ‘ordinary’ malpractice action.”
• because the issue of proximate causation in an informed consent case relates to what a person of ordinary prudence would do under the circumstances, members of the jury can determine whether a prudent person would have proceeded with the proposed treatment
• the question of proximate cause in an informed consent context requires the jury to use their knowledge, experience and common sense to decide whether, after proper disclosure, a prudent person would have proceeded with the proposed treatment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).