Felton v. Lovett
388 S.W.3d 656
| Tex. | 2012Background
- Felton sought chiropractic treatment for neck pain from Lovett and suffered vertebral artery dissection with stroke after a third, more forceful neck manipulation.
- Lovett was aware of stroke risk from chiropractic neck manipulation and had prior patient instances of vertebral dissection.
- Felton alleged that Lovett failed to disclose associated risks and was negligent in treatment.
- Jury found nondisclosure occurred, and awarded Felton damages; negligence in causing the injury was not found.
- Texas MLA § 74.101 limits recovery to a theory of negligent failure to disclose risks that could influence consent; Lovett argued chiropractor is not a physician and the statute may not apply.
- Court held common-law disclosure duties apply when § 74.101 does not apply, and that inherent risks are those directly related to treatment.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether vertebral artery dissection risk is inherent in chiropractic neck manipulation | Felton argues the risk is inherent in the procedure and must be disclosed. | Lovett contends the risk arises only if the patient is unhealthy or manipulation is improper. | Yes; risk is inherent in the procedure. |
| Whether § 74.101 applies to Lovett as a chiropractor | Felton argues statute governs disclosure by health care providers broadly, including chiropractors. | Lovett argues chiropractors are not physicians and medical care is defined to exclude chiropractic treatment. | Statutory duty does not govern here; common-law duty applies when § 74.101 does not apply. |
| Whether common-law duty to disclose aligns with statutory duty | Felton asserts the statutory and common-law duties are congruent and both require disclosure of inherent risks. | Lovett argues the statutory focus on patient interests differs from the physician-focused common-law duty. | They are congruent; the common-law duty to disclose inherent risks applies. |
| What constitutes an inherent risk in this context | Felton relies on expert evidence that vertebral dissection and stroke are known risks of the treatment and must be disclosed. | Lovett contends the risk existed only due to an unhealthy artery or improper technique. | Inherent risks include those directly related to the treatment, including known risks of dissection and stroke from the procedure. |
| Effect of jury's nondisclosure finding when negligent treatment was not proven | Nondisclosure findings support liability under both common-law and statutory duties. | Non-causation in negligence of treatment undermines liability for nondisclosure. | Nondisclosure findings support liability; separate legal theories may be reconciled. |
Key Cases Cited
- Barclay v. Campbell, 704 S.W.2d 8 (Tex.1986) (statutory vs. common-law duties; disclosure standards)
- Peterson v. Shields, 652 S.W.2d 929 (Tex.1983) (MLA predecessor; standards of care/disclosure)
- Wilson v. Scott, 412 S.W.2d 299 (Tex.1967) (nondisclosure duty framework)
- Binur v. Jacobo, 135 S.W.3d 646 (Tex.2004) (inherent risks; statutory and common-law interplay)
- Tajchman v. Giller, 938 S.W.2d 95 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1996) (inherent risks in medical procedures; appellate treatment)