Harrison v. United States
United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
284 F.3d 293 (2002)
Dr. Laz, Kenyeda Taft's obstetrician for her second pregnancy, knew her first delivery had caused the baby's Erb's Palsy but relied on medical records describing that earlier delivery as uncomplicated, and never discussed with Taft the option of an elective C-section for her second delivery; her second child, Melvin Harrison (plaintiff), was again injured during vaginal delivery and developed Erb's Palsy. Taft sued Laz's employer, the United States (defendant), under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging both negligent care and failure to obtain informed consent; after the district court ruled for the government on the standard-of-care claim, it went on to apply a balancing test comparing the risks of vaginal birth against C-section risks, and found Laz had no duty to disclose the C-section option because, in his reasonable judgment, C-section risks outweighed vaginal-birth risks. Taft appealed.
Whether a physician's duty to disclose risks for informed-consent purposes is satisfied by the physician's own reasonable judgment balancing the risks of one procedure against an alternative, rather than by assessing whether the undisclosed risks were material to the patient's decision.