197 So. 3d 265
La. Ct. App.2016Background
- Wanda Magee received a dental implant from Dr. Charles Williams in Feb. 2010 after earlier extractions and a CT evaluation; she signed a treatment plan but admitted she did not read it.
- She returned for two postoperative “follow‑up” procedures (Feb. 18 and July 8, 2010) during which Dr. Williams performed surgical exposure and, on the second occasion, placed an allograft and membrane; he did not obtain a signed consent form but says he gave oral risk/benefit disclosures and obtained verbal consent.
- After continued problems, Magee saw another periodontist (Dr. Borders) who ultimately removed the implant and performed a bone graft in Nov. 2010.
- Magee filed an MRP complaint; the panel found no breach of the standard of care for the implant but left a question of fact as to informed consent for the two followups. She later sued for malpractice and lack of informed consent as to the followups.
- Dr. Williams moved for summary judgment on the informed‑consent claims; he produced Magee’s deposition in which she admitted she wanted to keep the implant and likely would have proceeded even if fully informed. The district court granted summary judgment dismissing all claims; Magee appealed pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether lack of informed consent for the two followup procedures defeats causation | Magee contends she did not give consent to the two followups and would not have agreed to the bone graft/exposure | Williams argues verbal consent is valid under La. law and Magee admitted she would likely have consented anyway | Court held Magee admitted she would have consented; causation element lacking, so summary judgment affirmed |
| Whether failure to have written documentation of consent renders consent invalid | Magee argues absence of chart documentation proves no consent | Williams points out La. law permits verbal consent and does not require written evidence | Court held writing not essential; lack of documentation is not a legal breach |
| Whether MRP finding of a “question of fact” precludes summary judgment | Magee relies on the MRP’s unresolved question as evidence of factual dispute | Williams produced deposition evidence undermining causation and showed no genuine issue on that element | Court held the MRP’s “question of fact” did not prevent summary judgment when later evidence failed to create a genuine issue |
| Whether other claimed errors (standards of care, HIPAA, etc.) are reviewable on this appeal | Magee raised many other claims below | Williams notes the judgment addressed only informed‑consent claims; other claims were resolved or outside this appeal | Court limited review to the judgment’s scope and did not consider claims not before it |
Key Cases Cited
- Lugenbuhl v. Dowling, 701 So.2d 447 (La. 1997) (causation in informed‑consent claim requires that disclosure would have led a reasonable person to refuse treatment)
- Brandt v. Engle, 791 So.2d 614 (La. 2001) (affirming need to prove causation element in informed‑consent claims)
- Roberts v. Marx, 109 So.3d 462 (La. App. 2 Cir.) (informed‑consent causation standard and proof requirements)
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (appellate review of summary judgment is de novo)
- Jones v. Estate of Santiago, 870 So.2d 1002 (La. 2004) (summary judgment burden‑shifting when mover will not bear burden at trial)
- Schultz v. Guoth, 57 So.3d 1002 (La. 2011) (summary judgment standard and favored procedural use)