ALLEN v. HARRISON, 2016 OK 44

Allen swallowed a small nail and presented to Duncan Regional Hospital ER where Dr. Harrison ordered an X‑ray showing the nail in her stomach and discharged her with advice to "eat fiber and let the nail pass," return if problems, and follow up in three days.
Dr. Harrison did not inform Allen of alternative interventions (endoscopic or surgical removal) nor consult a surgeon; he testified those options were outside his scope.
The next day Allen developed severe vomiting, went to another hospital, and underwent emergency surgery to remove the nail; she suffered a perforated, infected bowel and subsequent surgeries for complications.
Allen sued the hospital and Dr. Harrison for medical negligence and lack of informed consent; the hospital settled and the claim against Dr. Harrison proceeded.
Trial court granted Dr. Harrison partial summary judgment on the informed consent claim; the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed relying on precedent that tied informed consent to affirmative invasive treatment.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether informed consent requires disclosure of alternatives for noninvasive or nonsurgical recommended treatments and whether a physician must disclose medically reasonable alternatives outside his preferred recommendation or scope.

Issue	Allen's Argument	Harrison's Argument	Held
Does informed consent require disclosure for noninvasive/nonsurgical recommended treatment?	Yes — doctrine applies to recommended treatment whether invasive or not.	No — doctrine applies only to affirmative/surgical interventions.	Yes — applies equally to invasive and noninvasive treatments.
Must a physician disclose medically reasonable alternatives that the physician does not recommend?	Yes — patient must be informed of reasonable alternatives to make autonomous choice.	No — physician need not disclose options outside his scope or contrary to his judgment.	Yes — physician must disclose medically reasonable alternatives, even if not recommended.
Can physician rely on his clinical judgment or scope of practice to avoid disclosure?	Disclosure is required despite physician preference; ultimate choice is patient’s.	Clinical judgment and scope excuse duty to disclose alternatives.	No — professional standard cannot supplant patient’s need-to-know; scope/judgment do not excuse duty to disclose.
Was summary judgment proper on Allen’s informed consent claim?	Summary judgment was improper because material legal issue (duty to disclose) exists.	Summary judgment proper because no actionable informed consent claim absent affirmative invasive treatment.	Reversed — trial court erred; case remanded for further proceedings.

Scott v. Bradford, 1979 OK 165, 606 P.2d 554 (establishes full‑disclosure rule and patient’s right to decide; duty measured by patient’s need to know)
Smith v. Reisig, M.D., Inc., 1984 OK 56, 686 P.2d 285 (failure to disclose viable non‑surgical alternative to surgery violates duty)
Parris v. Limes, 2012 OK 18, 277 P.3d 1259 (informed consent claim survives summary judgment where nondisclosure of information would have affected patient’s decision)