James J. Bogner, II v. Vanderbilt University, M2015-00669-COA-R3-CV

Background

Barbara Bogner (age 75) underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) at Vanderbilt in its hybrid suite on April 18, 2006; a completion angiogram immediately followed and an angioplasty was performed when a graft appeared restricted.
Mrs. Bogner signed three consent forms: an operative consent for CABG, a research/data-consent describing a retrospective study of CABG followed by completion angiography in the hybrid suite, and a routine hospital treatment consent on admission.
Plaintiff (after Mrs. Bogner's death, her son as administrator) sued Vanderbilt for medical malpractice, medical battery, and lack of informed consent, alleging she did not consent to the completion angiogram/angioplasty and was misled about risks.
At trial the court granted a partial directed verdict for Vanderbilt on some claims but denied directed verdicts on medical battery and informed consent; the jury returned a verdict for Vanderbilt. Court denied new trial; plaintiff appealed.
Key factual disputes at trial: whether Mrs. Bogner knew the CABG would be performed in the hybrid suite (and would include a completion angiogram) and whether Vanderbilt (through forms or oral disclosure) adequately informed her of additional risks of the hybrid/completion-angiogram components.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court erred denying directed verdict on medical battery (was the hybrid procedure unauthorized?)	Bogner: Mrs. Bogner only consented to routine CABG, not to completion angiogram/angioplasty or experimental hybrid procedure.	Vanderbilt: Operative consent plus research/data-consent and surgeon discussion provided knowledge and authorization for CABG in the hybrid suite (completion angiogram is part of CABG).	Denied — reasonable jurors could find Mrs. Bogner knew of and authorized the hybrid procedure; directed verdict not appropriate.
Whether the court erred denying directed verdict on lack of informed consent (failure to disclose material risks)	Bogner: Hybrid/completion angiogram was experimental and carried additional risks that were not disclosed; forms were misleading.	Vanderbilt: Risks and hybrid nature were discussed orally; research form was for data only; operative consent encompassed the angiogram.	Denied — conflicting expert testimony created material factual issues for the jury about disclosure and consent.
Whether trial court erred in refusing special jury instructions requested by Bogner	Bogner: Requested instructions on mistake/misrepresentation, duty to disclose experimental nature, and that lack of disclosure can void consent.	Vanderbilt: General charge already covered informed consent, experiment definition, and battery; requested instructions were duplicative.	Denied — substance of requests was included in general charge; no prejudicial omission shown.
Whether special verdict form was confusing and prejudiced the jury	Bogner: The initial question (whether CABG plus completion angiography/angioplasty constituted one procedure) confused jurors and led to an incorrect verdict.	Vanderbilt: Form tracked issues and charge; jurors’ handwritten note did not show confusion affecting the verdict; jurors were polled and affirmed verdict.	Denied — form was consistent with instructions and did not demonstrably mislead jury.

Key Cases Cited

Blanchard v. Kellum, 975 S.W.2d 522 (Tenn. 1998) (distinguishes unauthorized procedure/battery from inadequate disclosure/informed consent)
Johnson v. Tennessee Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., 205 S.W.3d 365 (Tenn. 2006) (standard of review for directed verdicts; review charge as whole for jury instructions)
Ashe v. Radiation Oncology Associates, 9 S.W.3d 119 (Tenn. 1999) (elements for informed consent claim)
Shadrick v. Coker, 963 S.W.2d 726 (Tenn. 1998) (causation requirement and emergency exception to consent)
Concrete Spaces, Inc. v. Sender, 2 S.W.3d 901 (Tenn. 1999) (when a special verdict form requires a new trial)