Matthies v. Mastromonaco
Supreme Court of New Jersey
733 A.2d 456 (1999)
After breaking her hip, Matthies (plaintiff) was treated by Dr. Mastromonaco (defendant), who prescribed bed rest rather than surgical screw placement based on her age, frailty, osteoporosis, and expected severe surgical pain; Matthies's own expert testified bed rest was inappropriate unless a patient wasn't expected to walk again, and carried a real risk of fracture dislocation, which is exactly what happened. Matthies, previously independent and mobile, never walked again after her prescribed bed rest and the resulting displacement, becoming confined to a nursing home; she sued for both malpractice and lack of informed consent, arguing she'd never have consented to bed rest knowing the risk to her mobility. The trial court dismissed the informed-consent claim as subsumed within the malpractice claim since the treatment was non-invasive, the jury found for Mastromonaco on malpractice, and the Appellate Division reversed based on the trial court's failure to separately instruct the jury on informed consent.
Whether the informed-consent requirement obligates a physician to inform a patient of medically reasonable invasive and non-invasive alternatives, regardless of whether the physician recommends them, even when the chosen course of action is itself non-invasive.