Warren v. Imperia
287 P.3d 1128
Or. Ct. App.2012Background
- Plaintiff sued ophthalmologist for medical malpractice alleging improper screening for monovision CK surgery.
- Plaintiff previously trialed monovision with contact lens and could not tolerate it.
- Defendant evaluated plaintiff in December 2004 and approved CK based on a loose lens test.
- December 29, 2004 CK was performed; afterwards plaintiff suffered headaches and vision problems.
- Plaintiff later underwent another procedure in 2005; injuries persisted.
- Plaintiff’s operative complaint asserted negligence; informed consent claims were withdrawn before trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are informed consent materials relevant to negligence standard? | Plaintiff argues consent info informs standard of care. | Defendant argues consent materials are probative of care, not negligence. | Excluded as irrelevant to standard of care. |
| Was excluding consent evidence within permissible 403 limits? | Consent details clarify defendant’s approach and credibility. | Evidence risks unfair prejudice and confusion. | No abuse; probative value marginal and prejudicial risk high. |
| Does risk/alternative information bear on whether defendant properly assessed candidacy? | Such information shows depth of inquiry supporting proper assessment. | Risk/alternative info does not affect the negligence standard. | Not relevant to whether defendant met standard of care. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Faunce, 251 Or App 58 (2012) (relevance standard of law review)
- Macy v. Blatchford, 330 Or 444 (2000) (standard of care in medical negligence)
- Hayes v. Camel, 283 Conn 475 (2007) (informed consent evidence generally irrelevant in lack-of-consent claims)
- Liscio v. Pinson, 83 P.3d 1149 (Colo App 2003) (informed consent evidence relevance varies by claim)
- Waller v. Aggarwal, 116 Ohio App 3d 355 (1996) (informed consent evidence prejudicial in negligence cases)