Snider v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance
130 So. 3d 922
La.2013Background
- Plaintiffs sued Dr. Yue for lack of informed consent and alleged malpractice related to pacemaker implantation in 2007.
- Plaintiff Mr. Snider previously had coronary artery disease and bradycardia; he signed a consent form for pacemaker/heart catheterization.
- The consent form did not clearly disclose all Panel-listed risks or tie the consent to Panel-based disclosures.
- The district court did not give a jury instruction addressing Subsection E compliance; the jury was instructed on general informed-consent concepts.
- The Third Circuit reversed, finding lack of informed consent under Subsection (E); this Court granted review to evaluate standard of review and statutory interpretation.
- This Court reverses, holding informed consent could be shown under Subsections (A) or (C) and remands for manifest-error review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standard of review for consent fact findings | Snider argues manifest-error review applies to consent findings. | Yue argues appellate review should defer to jury findings on consent. | Appellate manifest-error review applies to factual consent findings. |
| Adequacy of informed consent under Uniform Consent Law | Snider contends Panel-required disclosures were missing, invalidating consent. | Yue contends written/oral disclosures under Subsections A/C sufficed. | Consent could be valid under Subsections A or C; Subsection E was optional. |
| Effect of Panel disclosures on proof of consent | Panel-list disclosures were not properly provided, so consent was not informed. | Non-Panel disclosures plus patient questions could still constitute informed consent. | Panel-disclosures are not exclusive; Subsections A/C can support consent. |
| Jury instruction on informed consent | Improper focus on Subsection E without considering A/C evidence. | Jury was properly instructed on consent generally. | Judgment reversed for remand to consider all three subsections. |
| Remand disposition after ruling | Remand for damages record following liability determination was appropriate. | Remand should be limited to appellate reconsideration of liability. | Remand to Court of Appeal with instruction to address assignments of error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wooley v. Lucksinger, 61 So.3d 507 (La. 2011) (articulates standard for appellate review of factual findings)
- Rosell v. ESCO, 549 So.2d 840 (La. 1989) (manifest error two-part test for fact-finder reversals)
- Stobart v. State, Department of Transportation and Development, 617 So.2d 880 (La. 1993) (establishes deference to credibility determinations)
- Mart v. Hill, 505 So.2d 1120 (La. 1987) (clarifies manifestly erroneous standard)
- Hondroulis v. Schuhmacher, 553 So.2d 398 (La. 1988) (historical pre-Uniform Consent duty to disclose)
- Brandt v. Engle, 791 So.2d 614 (La. 2001) (materiality and causation in informed-consent cases)
- Thibodeaux v. Jurgelsky, 898 So.2d 299 (La. 2005) (advanced discussion of informed-consent elements)
- Evans v. Lungrin, 708 So.2d 731 (La. 1998) (legal-error manifest standard and corrective remedy)