Ike J. WHITE III v. David A. BEEKS, M.D, 469 S.W.3d 517

Plaintiff Ike J. White III (age 19) underwent posterior lumbar fusion in May 2006 performed by Dr. David A. Beeks using the bone‑graft product InFuse; postoperative ectopic bone growth and recurrent radicular pain followed.
White sued for lack of informed consent, alleging Beeks failed to disclose his intent to use InFuse, how it would be used, and risks associated with its use.
Plaintiff's expert (Dr. Melvin Law) in pretrial deposition identified multiple InFuse risks (ectopic bone growth, cystic lesions, postoperative radiculitis, fluid collection); at trial the court limited Dr. Law to testifying only about risks that allegedly materialized and caused White injury (ectopic bone growth and inflammatory reactions).
Beeks and his expert (Dr. Christopher Kauffman) testified Beeks adequately disclosed relevant risks and disputed causation between InFuse and White's neurological symptoms.
A jury returned a defense verdict. The Court of Appeals affirmed by a divided panel; the Tennessee Supreme Court granted review to decide admissibility of expert testimony about undisclosed, non‑materialized risks and whether exclusion was reversible error.
The Tennessee Supreme Court held the trial court erred in excluding testimony about undisclosed risks that did not materialize and that the error, more probably than not, affected the verdict; remanded for a new trial on informed consent.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the trial court properly excluded expert testimony about undisclosed risks that did not materialize	White: All significant risks (materialized or not) are relevant to what a prudent person would have decided; expert may describe risks even if they did not occur	Beeks: Non‑occurring risks are irrelevant under Rule 401 and unduly prejudicial under Rule 403; only risks that ripened into injury matter	Court: Exclusion was erroneous — risks that did not materialize are relevant to informed consent and admissible absent Rule 403 exclusion
Whether the erroneous exclusion was harmless	White: Exclusion deprived jury of key evidence on what a reasonable patient would have decided; it likely affected verdict	Beeks: Even with excluded testimony, other evidence supported defense verdict; error harmless	Court: Error was not harmless in this close case; more probably than not it influenced the jury; new trial ordered

Schloendorff v. Society of N.Y. Hosp., 105 N.E. 92 (N.Y. 1914) (early statement of bodily‑autonomy and consent principle)
Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. Univ. Bd. of Trs., 317 P.2d 170 (Cal. Ct. App. 1957) (articulated modern doctrine of informed consent and full disclosure)
Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (standard for materiality of risks and objective causation inquiry)
Ray v. Scheibert, 450 S.W.2d 578 (Tenn. 1969) (Tennessee recognition of medical battery/informed consent principles)
Blanchard v. Kellum, 975 S.W.2d 522 (Tenn. 1998) (distinguishing unauthorized procedure (battery) from failure to disclose (informed consent))
Ashe v. Radiation Oncology Assocs., 9 S.W.3d 119 (Tenn. 1999) (elements and objective‑patient standard in Tennessee informed consent law)