Login

Login

To access this feature, please Log In or Register for your Casebriefs Account.

Add to Library

Add

Search

Login
Register

Cobbs v. Grant

    Brief Fact Summary.

    Cobbs sued Grant for medical malpractice when Grnat a doctor, did not inform Cobbs of the risks associated with an operation to remove stomach ulcers.

    Synopsis of Rule of Law.

    A doctor is required to reveal any information that any other medical professional in good standing would reveal under the same circumstances prior to treating a patient.

    Facts.

    Dr. Grant (Grant) informs Cobbs that he needed to undergo surgery when Cobbs had a stomach ulcer. Grant did not inform Cobbs of the risks associated with the surgery. During the surgery, Grant performed two additional surgeries: one to remove an additional ulcer, and another surgery Cobb’s spleen. Cobbs filed suit for medical malpractice. The jury found for Cobbs.

    Issue.

    Whether a doctor is required to reveal any information that any other medical professional in good standing would reveal under the same circumstances prior to treating a patient?

    Held.

    Yes. The judgment of the trial court is reversed. Cobb’s claim is not a lack of consent, but rather a lack of informed consent, making this a negligence claim, rather than a battery claim.

    Discussion.

    A doctor is required to reveal any information that any other medical professional in good standing would reveal under the same circumstances prior to treating a patient. A doctor is required to reveal the risk of death, bodily harm, and any complications that can result from the procedure.


    Create New Group

      Casebriefs is concerned with your security, please complete the following