White v. Leimbach, 131 Ohio St. 3d 21

Whites sue Leimbach for lack of informed consent after a second discectomy that allegedly worsened disability.
Second discectomy presented greater risks due to scar tissue and nerve injury; Whites claim failure to disclose material risks.
Trial court granted directed verdict for Leimbach; court of appeals vacated and remanded.
Leimbach and Miner (second-opinion physician) testified that warnings were given and that risks were disclosed.
Postoperative course included persistent pain and surgical notes acknowledging scar tissue and limited recovery.
Court must decide whether expert testimony is required to prove each element of an informed-consent claim and whether undisclosed risks materialized to cause injury.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether expert testimony is required to prove material risks and materialization.	White argues expert proof not necessary for material risks.	Leimbach argues expert testimony is required to identify material risks and causation.	Yes; expert testimony required for material risks and materialization.
Whether undisclosed risk materialized and proximately caused injury.	White asserts undisclosed risk caused nerve injury.	Leimbach contends no expert proof the risk materialized and caused injury.	No sufficient expert proof that undisclosed risk materialized and caused injury.

Nickell v. Gonzalez, 17 Ohio St.3d 136 (1985) (elements of informed consent; reasonable-patient standard; materiality determined by jury)
Sard v. Hardy, 281 Md. 432 (1977) (reasonableness and materiality of risk guiding disclosure)
Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (materiality and disclosure in informed consent (privacy of patient info))
Thibodeaux v. Jurgelsky, 898 So.2d 299 (La. 2005) (two-step materiality analysis in informed consent cases)
Roberts v. Ohio Permanente Med. Group, Inc., 76 Ohio St.3d 483 (1996) (causation proven by medical probability; expert testimony typical)