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.