Quarles v. Panchal, 2011 OK 13

Quarles sued Panchal for negligence and lack of informed consent following breast augmentation that led to swelling and widened scars requiring a second procedure.
Plaintiff signed a consent form for bilateral breast implants but asserts Panchal performed a more invasive bilateral mastopexy/breast lift.
Trial court instructed the jury on both negligence and lack of informed consent, including a battery theory for lack of consent.
Verdict forms were general; Plaintiff later moved to substitute a form separating claims but the court denied the motion.
Jury returned a verdict for Defendant; Plaintiff appealed contending the verdict forms were defective for not separately addressing each claim.
Courts below disagreed on preservation; the Oklahoma Supreme Court reviews only for fundamental error where objections were untimely.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether separate verdict forms were required for each claim.	Quarles argues separate forms should have been used for negligence and lack of consent.	Panchal contends general verdict forms are permissible absent timely objection.	No reversible error; separate forms not required absent timely objection.
Whether the use of a general verdict form prejudiced Quarles.	General form obscured distinct issues of consent and negligence.	No prejudice; instructions properly guided the jury.	No substantial prejudice; no fundamental error from the form.
Whether trial court properly instructed on informed consent and battery.	Informed-consent instruction should have emphasized separate liability theories.	Instructions accurately stated the law and supported the verdict.	Instructions adequately stated the law; no reversible error.
Whether the verdicts complied with two independent causes of action.	Separate consideration of consent and negligence is required.	The jury could assess the combined issues under the provided instructions.	Record supported a verdict consistent with the instructions and evidence.
Whether the decision is subject to fundamental-error review or preserved error.	Fundamental error due to defective verdict form.	No fundamental error; preservation requirement satisfied by timely objections.	Review limited to fundamental error; no reversible fundamental error found.

Stephens v. Draper, 350 P.2d 506 (Okla. 1960) (separate verdict forms should be submitted for multiple causes)
Stakis et al. v. Dimitroff, 6 P.2d 1053 (Okla. 1931) (waiver of objection to general verdict forms for multiple actions)
LPCX Corp. v. Faulkner, 818 P.2d 431 (Okla. 1991) (waiver when no timely request for separate verdict forms)
Capshaw v. Gulf Ins. Co., 107 P.3d 595 (Okla. 2005) (preservation for aiding new-trial; exception must be raised before submission)
Sellars v. McCullough, 784 P.2d 1060 (Okla. 1989) (fundamental error review requires substantial miscarriage of justice)
Sullivan v. Forty-Second West Corp., 961 P.2d 801 (Okla. 1998) (reversible error requires miscarriage of justice or constitutional violation)
Taliaferro v. Shahsavari, 154 P.3d 1240 (Okla. 2006) (instructions must accurately state the law; fundamental error if misled jury)
Scott v. Bradford, 606 P.2d 554 (Okla. 1979) (instructive view on jury instructions and cohesive law application)
Vaught v. Holland, 554 P.2d 1174 (Okla. 1976) (fundamental-error standards for verdict-related issues)
Capshaw v. Gulf Ins. Co., 2005 OK 5, 107 P.3d 595 (Okla. 2005) (preservation requirement and timing for objections to blank verdict forms)