Cooper ex rel. Cooper v. Lankenau Hospital, 51 A.3d 183

Appellants allege lack of consent for an emergency C-section performed by Nemser-Rudo after Cooper refused consent; lack of consent sounds in battery; trial court gave battery-based consent instruction emphasizing intent to harm; jury found no battery; the Superior Court affirmed; Court grants allocatur to review the jury instruction; majority holds instruction read as a whole accurately stated the law and did not require intent to harm; dissent argues harmful/offensive contact element should be disallowed in lack-of-consent cases.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was the lack-of-consent jury instruction erroneous for requiring intent to harm?	Appellants: intent to harm element wrong in lack-of-consent case.	Appellees: instruction read in whole conveyed correct law; no intent-to-harm requirement.	No error; instruction correct when read in full.
Did the verdict slip issue and overall charge adequately reflect the governing law?	Appellants: verdict slip misframed issue as battery rather than consent.	Appellees: slip and charge consistent with law; consent and battery linked.	Yes; charge and verdict slip coherent with the law.

Dicenzo v. Berg, 340 Pa. 305 (1940) (consent prerequisite to nonemergency surgery)
Montgomery v. Bazaz-Sehgal, 568 Pa. 574 (2002) (surgical procedure without consent sounds in battery; no duty to prove informed consent in lack-of-consent claim)
Morgan v. MacPhail, 550 Pa. 202 (1997) (surgery without consent constitutes battery)
Gray v. Grunnagle, 423 Pa. 144 (1966) (unauthorized surgery may support battery claim even absent injury)
Moure v. Raeuchle, 529 Pa. 394 (1992) (operation without consent is a technical assault)