Jerry W. Canterbury v. William Thornton Spence and the Washington Hospital Center, a Body Corporate

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that “[a]n unrevealed risk that should have been made known must materialize, for otherwise the omission, however unpardonable, is legally without consequence”
• holding that battery claim was barred by statute of limitations
• explaining that the foundation for an informed consent claim is the understanding that “it is the prerogative of the patient, not the physician, to determine for himself the direction in which his interests seem to lie”
• separating physician's duty \to treat [and diagnose] his patient skillfully” from his \obligation to communicate specific information to the patient”
• prevailing medical practice must be considered when medical judgment is at issue; ordinarily, only the physician is in a position to identify particular dangers
• reviewing statistical probabilities for which physicians were held liable to inform their patients: liability found for 1% and 3% risk; no liability found for 1 in 800,000 risk or 1 in 250-500 risk

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).