Narrative Opinion Summary
This case involves a medical procedure dispute between a patient, who underwent a hysterectomy, and an anesthesiologist along with his medical group. The patient, suffering from a temporomandibular joint disorder, requested nasal intubation to avoid exacerbating her condition. Contrary to her request, oral intubation was performed, leading to increased pain and injuries. The patient filed a lawsuit alleging medical battery, negligence, and lack of informed consent. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for the defendants, asserting that by signing a consent form and failing to object during the procedure, the patient had authorized the intubation method. On appeal, the court reversed this decision in part, identifying a genuine issue of material fact regarding the patient's authorization of oral intubation. The appellate court found that the trial court misapplied the Blanchard framework, which distinguishes between medical battery and informed consent claims. The case underscores the legal distinctions between these claims and the implications of patient consent in medical procedures. The appellate ruling partially reinstates the medical battery claim, emphasizing the necessity of resolving factual disputes concerning the patient's consent and communication of her intubation preference. Costs were assigned to the anesthesiologist and the medical group.
Legal Issues Addressed
Application of the Blanchard Frameworksubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The Blanchard framework is used to determine whether the claim should be classified as medical battery or informed consent, impacting the necessity of expert testimony.
Reasoning: The trial judge utilized the Blanchard framework to assess whether Hensley’s claims pertained to medical battery or informed consent.
Informed Consentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The determination of whether a claim is for informed consent hinges on the patient's awareness of and authorization for the procedure, which would require expert testimony.
Reasoning: The Tennessee Supreme Court's Blanchard decision clarifies that if a patient is aware of and authorizes a procedure without being informed of its risks, the claim is for lack of informed consent, requiring expert testimony.
Medical Batterysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court examines whether the patient's claim falls under medical battery, which does not require expert testimony, based on the patient's awareness and authorization of the procedure.
Reasoning: Hensley countered that her lawsuit was based on battery, which does not require expert testimony.
Summary Judgment Standardssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The trial court's grant of summary judgment is questioned due to a genuine dispute regarding the authorization of the procedure, which demands that evidence be viewed in favor of the nonmoving party.
Reasoning: The standard for summary judgment requires the moving party to prove there is no genuine issue of material fact, with the court viewing evidence favorably for the nonmoving party.