A patient underwent a routine medical procedure. Before the procedure, the doctor explained the general risks and benefits, but failed to disclose a statistically rare but severe complication that had a known but very low probability of occurring. The patient signed a consent form. During the procedure, this specific rare complication occurred, causing the patient significant and unforeseen harm. The patient sued the doctor for battery. What is the most likely outcome?
- AThe doctor will win because the patient signed a consent form.
- BThe doctor will win because the patient consented to the procedure, negating battery.
- CThe patient will win because the rare complication occurred.
- DThe patient will win because the doctor failed to disclose all risks.
Show answer & explanationAnswer & explanation
Correct answer: B. The doctor will win because the patient consented to the procedure, negating battery.
For battery in a medical context, the patient must not have consented to the touching itself, or the touching must have been substantially different from what was consented to. Here, the patient consented to the *procedure*. While the failure to disclose a rare complication might give rise to a claim for negligence (lack of informed consent), it does not negate the consent to the physical touching for battery purposes. Battery requires a complete lack of consent to the touching or a touching that is completely outside the scope of what was consented to.
Why the other options are wrong
- A. Signing a consent form is strong evidence of consent to the procedure, which is the key for battery.
- C. The occurrence of the complication itself does not automatically establish battery; the issue is consent to the touching.
- D. Failure to disclose all risks is generally a matter of negligence (lack of informed consent), not battery.
Consent (Medical Battery vs. Negligence)
In medical contexts, consent to the procedure itself generally negates battery. Claims for failure to disclose risks (lack of informed consent) sound in negligence, not battery, as long as the patient consented to the touching performed.
- Battery requires touching without consent, or touching substantially different from what was consented to.
- Lack of informed consent (failure to disclose risks) is typically a negligence claim.
- If the patient consents to the operation, but not all risks are disclosed, it's negligence.
- If the doctor performs a different operation entirely, or on a different body part, it may be battery.
Memory trick: Battery: NO consent. Negligence: BAD consent (not informed).