109 So. 3d 462
La. Ct. App.2013Background
- Roberts sued Dr. Marx for medical malpractice alleging failure to obtain informed consent prior to vasectomy, due to not disclosing Dr. Marx’s recent eye surgery and vision impairment.
- Roberts’ hematoma and infection after vasectomy were treated with additional surgeries; Dr. Marx had returned to practice with magnification aids.
- Dr. Marx had eye surgery on Sept 13, 2007, resulting in temporary vision loss; he used magnification loupe upon return.
- The medical review panel found no fault by Dr. Marx; Roberts offered no expert evidence in opposition to the panel’s findings.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Dr. Marx, concluding no genuine issue of material fact on breach of standard of care; Roberts appealed.
- The appellate court affirmed, holding that lack of expert causation and standard-of-care testimony foreclosed Roberts’ claims.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Roberts can prove informed-consent breach without expert testimony | Roberts argues lack of disclosure is a material risk; expert not needed | Informed consent requires expert proof of standard and breach | No genuine issue; expert proof required; relied on panel and lack of causation evidence |
| Whether summary judgment was proper given causation evidence | Circumstantial evidence supports causation | Evidence insufficient to show causation or breach | Affirmed; Roberts failed to show causation and breach by Dr. Marx |
| Whether Dr. Marx’s vision impairment and use of magnification affected care | Impairment could have affected ability to treat; must be proven | Any impairment corrected by loupe; no deviation proven | No material issue; impairment not shown to breach standard of care |
Key Cases Cited
- Samaha v. Rau, 977 So.2d 880 (La. 2008) (summary-judgment standard and burden-shifting in medical malpractice)
- Duncan v. U.S.A.A. Ins. Co., 950 So.2d 544 (La. 2006) (summary judgment procedure and burden on movant)
- Pfiffner v. Correa, 643 So.2d 1228 (La. 1994) (expert testimony required for standard of care in medical malpractice)
- Gleason v. Louisiana Dept. of Health & Hospitals, 33 So.3d 961 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2010) (standard-of-care and expert testimony in medical-malpractice context)
- Schultz v. Guoth, 57 So.3d 1002 (La. 2011) (causation and expert proof in medical malpractice)
- Thibodeaux v. Jurgelsky, 898 So.2d 299 (La. 2005) (informed-consent negligence theory and material risks)
- Brandt v. Engle, 791 So.2d 614 (La. 2001) (materiality of risk and patient-decisions regarding disclosure)
- Hidding v. Williams, 578 So.2d 1192 (La. App. 5th Cir. 1991) (disclosure of chronic alcohol abuse as material risk)
- Jackson v. State, 938 So.2d 688 (La. 2006) (materiality of risks in informed-consent disclosures)