Sard v. Hardy

How courts have described this case

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

• acknowledging that under common law principles “a physician, treating a mentally competent adult under non-emergency circumstances, cannot properly undertake to perform surgery or administer other therapy without the prior consent of his patient”
• stating the plaintiffs testimony is relevant although not determinative and alluding to no expert testimony regarding causation
• patient's hindsight testimony about what he would have done is relevant, but not determinative, of the objective test
• “Under this rule, the patient’s hindsight testimony as to what he would have hypothetically done, though relevant, is not determinative of the issue.”
• no liability for failure to disclose if doctor \did not know of risk and had no duty to know of it.\
• “the scope of the physician’s duty to inform is to be measured by the materiality of the information to the decision of the patient”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).