Montz v. Williams, 188 So. 3d 1050

Plaintiffs sued for medical malpractice after a five-day jury trial; the jury found plaintiffs failed to prove the applicable standard of care for informed consent.
The Court of Appeal, Fifth Circuit, reversed, concluding the jury’s finding was clearly wrong because expert testimony and a medical panel opinion established that the standard of care was informed consent (Montz v. Williams).
Louisiana law places the burden on the plaintiff to prove, by a preponderance of the evidence, the applicable standard of care for the specialty and circumstances; factual findings are reviewed for manifest error (La. Rev. Stat. § 9:2794; Stobart).
Expert testimony is generally required to establish the applicable standard of care; however, where experts present two permissible views the jury’s choice among them is entitled to deference (Samaha; Rosell; Bellard).
The Supreme Court held that although informed consent was undisputedly required, the specific content and steps required to obtain valid informed consent were reasonably contested; the jury could credit defendant’s experts and reject plaintiffs’ proof.
The Supreme Court granted the writ, reversed the Court of Appeal, and reinstated the trial court judgment in favor of defendants.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs proved the applicable standard of care for informed consent	Evidence (expert testimony and medical panel opinion) established that informed consent was required and the specific standard was met by plaintiffs’ theory	Defendant’s experts showed a different, permissible view of what informed consent required under the circumstances	Jury reasonably credited defendant’s experts; plaintiffs failed to carry burden; appellate reversal was unwarranted
Whether the Court of Appeal could overturn jury fact-findings as manifestly erroneous	Jury verdict was clearly wrong given expert consensus and panel opinion	Jury is entitled to choose between conflicting expert views; such credibility choices are rarely manifestly erroneous	Credibility choice between experts cannot be deemed manifestly erroneous where two permissible views exist; reinstated jury verdict
Role of expert testimony in establishing standard of care	Experts and medical panel provided sufficient evidence to define standard	Expert disagreement allowed jury to accept defendant’s view	Expert disagreement meant jury decision was permissible and not clearly wrong

Montz v. Williams, 182 So.3d 1149 (La. App. 5 Cir. 2015) (appellate decision originally reversing jury verdict on informed consent)
Stobart v. State, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (factual findings reviewed for manifest error standard)
Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (need for expert testimony to establish standard of care)
Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (when two permissible expert views exist, factfinder’s choice is not manifestly erroneous)
Bellard v. American Cent. Ins. Co., 980 So.2d 654 (La. 2008) (credibility determinations based on witness choice are rarely manifestly erroneous)
Hondroulis v. Schuhmacher, 553 So.2d 398 (La. 1989) (requirement of informed consent in Louisiana law)