Norma Medeiros v. James Yashar, M.d. (Rhode Island 1991)

Summary

The court affirmed a medical-malpractice judgment based on failure to obtain informed consent, although the jury found no negligence in the performance of the procedure itself. It held that the plaintiff could use portions of the defendant's videotaped expert deposition concerning informed consent, could present evidence that the defendant's disclosure departed from community practice, and was not required to prove an exact percentage likelihood for each risk. The defendant's generalized warning that the procedure involved morbidity and mortality did not provide information sufficient for an informed decision. Justice Weisberger, joined by Justices Kelleher and Shea, concurred in the result but rejected the majority's view of the evidentiary treatment of deposition cross-examination.

Holding

Use of videotaped expert deposition testimony. The plaintiff could introduce the expert's deposition testimony concerning informed consent, including testimony elicited on cross-examination beyond the subject of the defendant's direct examination.

Plaintiff's use of community-standard evidence in an informed-consent claim. A plaintiff may introduce evidence that the defendant's disclosure departed from the community standard applicable to the particular patient and circumstances.

Required proof of risk incidence and sufficiency of the disclosure. The plaintiff generally must present credible evidence of the incidence of each relevant known risk, but need not prove a precise percentage likelihood. Regardless, the defendant's nonspecific warning that risks and complications existed was legally insufficient to support informed consent.