Shapria, M.D.

Summary

The Court affirmed the medical-malpractice judgment for John Houghton, holding that the jury could consider both the physician's failure to disclose a viable treatment alternative and his financial relationship with the procedure's manufacturer in evaluating informed consent. It also upheld the expert-testimony ruling, the award of prejudgment and post-judgment interest, and the proximate-cause instruction. The Court nevertheless held that the supplemental jury verdict was invalid because the defendant had not timely challenged the original verdict or instructions, and remanded for that supplemental verdict to be vacated.