310 P.3d 16
Ariz. Ct. App.2013Background
- Rice underwent a July 30, 2007 spinal surgery by Brakel; the left leg pain persisted postoperatively.
- Follow-up care was provided by Brakel’s Center for Neurosciences; later MRI and exams suggested nerve root issues.
- In 2010 Rice learned Brakel had prescription drug dependencies and disciplinary history; he sued in 2010 for battery, negligence, and breach of contract.
- The trial court granted summary judgment for Brakel and the Center on the battery and negligent supervision claims.
- Rice appealed, challenging battery, negligent supervision, informed consent, negligent performance, and covenant of good faith claims.
- The Arizona Court of Appeals affirmed, ruling no genuine disputes of material fact and affirming summary judgment for Brakel and the Center.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Medical battery requires lack of consent or misrepresentation | Rice contends lack of consent due to undisclosed drug dependency. | Brakel argues consent was given for the specific procedure performed. | No genuine issue; consent given; no misrepresentation established. |
| Negligent supervision by Center for Neurosciences | Center negligently supervised Brakel given his dependency and conduct. | There was no evidence Brakel’s dependency was known or imputable to Center; no causation. | Summary judgment affirmed; no proof Center knew or caused injury. |
| Informed consent and absence of disclosure of Brakel’s status | Disclosures about Brakel’s status could show lack of informed consent. | Lack of disclosure related to consent must be proven for malpractice, not battery; causation required. | No breach shown; failed to show would have declined treatment with disclosure; no causation. |
| Negligent performance of the procedure | Brakel’s dependency could have impacted performance from standard of care. | Expert conceded procedure within standard of care; no causal link shown. | No genuine issue; expert conceded proper performance; no negligence proven. |
| Covenant of good faith and fair dealing | Brakel treated while impaired breached implied covenant. | No evidence of breach or causal link to injury. | Waived and rejected; court upheld summary judgment on this claim. |
Key Cases Cited
- Duncan v. Scottsdale Med. Imaging, Ltd., 205 Ariz. 306, 70 P.3d 435 () (distinguishes lack of consent from lack of informed consent; battery limited to non-consented operations)
- Cobbs v. Grant, 502 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1972) (battery reserved for operations not consented to; informed consent involves negligence)
- Gorney v. Meaney, 214 Ariz. 226, 150 P.3d 799 (App. 2007) (disclosure standards under informed consent; nexus between undisclosed risks and injury)
- Orme School v. Reeves, 166 Ariz. 301, 802 P.2d 1000 () (establishes standards for summarily resolving negligence claims when no breach shown)
- Seisinger v. Siebel, 220 Ariz. 85, 203 P.3d 483 (¶ 32, 2009) (medical malpractice elements require breach and causation; expert testimony needed)