Taylor v. Brill

Summary

The court reversed a defense judgment in a medical malpractice action because the district court improperly admitted informed-consent and assumption-of-risk evidence, excluded nonexpert evidence supporting the reasonableness of medical billing, admitted insurance write-down evidence, and limited permissible closing argument. The court held that informed consent does not establish compliance with the medical standard of care or negate medical causation when consent is uncontested, although properly supported evidence of procedural risks may be admissible for evaluating negligence. The court remanded for further proceedings, including a new trial, and reversed related costs and attorney-fee orders.