Cobbs v. Grant

Citation. 502 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1972)

Powered by

Law Students: Don’t know your Bloomberg Law login? Register here

Citation502 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1972)

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.

Points of Law - Legal Principles in this Case for Law Students.

The problem with the subjective test was pointed out by the California Supreme Court in the case of Cobbs v. Grant wherein it is stated: Since at the time of trial the uncommunicated hazard has materialized, it would be surprising if the patient-plaintiff did not claim that had he been informed of the dangers he would have declined treatment.

View Full Point of Law

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.