Who are the parties?
What is the procedural history?
Why did plaintiff consult Dr. Martin?
What did Dr. Martin recommend?
What did plaintiff understand that Dr. Martin would do?
What document did Dr. Martin give plaintiff?
Who did he refer plaintiff to and what was the documented reason for the referral?
What was the chronology of the events in the defendant's offices?
Did they discuss the procedure?
What did the documents show was the understanding between patient and dentist at this point?
When was the plaintiff given the consent form?
Could she read the form?
When did she find out what the form said the dentist would do?
Where was the information about the additional extractions?
Was plaintiff given that information?
What did each defendant do?
How did Dr. Klee know to remove the lower teeth? (Remember this for Wilkerson)
What was the evidence of failure of informed consent that was evident in the recovery room?
Where was the referral card?
Why is a partial plate better than a full denture, at least in those days?
Did plaintiff have other injuries?
According to Dr. Webb's testimony, who gets to decide what dental work the patient gets?
Did the court allow the defendant to submit evidence that the lower teeth needed extraction?
Reading between the lines: What did the court seem to be telling us about the interaction between defendants and plaintiff?
What was the legal effect of the referral card and why did the court make this holding?
What is defendants' argument for a directed verdict?
What law did defendants' rely on?
Did the court accept defendants' authority?
What is the special legal relationship between physician and patient?
What are the requirements of this relationship?
What the problems with the signing of the "Permit" under this standard?
Are there elements of fraud?
What the problems with the "permit" itself as a consent document?
When does it appear to have been completed?
What further undermines the use of a consent form in this situation?
What standard for disclosure does the court use? (Remember this in Cobbs and then Wilkerson)
Even if it is assumed that the patient read and understood the permit, why would this not be enough to justify removing all her teeth?
What did the court say in Valdez about general (blanket) forms to do whatever is necessary?
Why did defendants object to Instruction #2?
Is this an accurate description of #2?
What does the jury have to find to trigger #2?
Was the verdict excessive?
The Law, Science & Public
Health Law Site
The Best on the WWW Since 1995!
Copyright as to non-public domain materials
See DR-KATE.COM for home hurricane and disaster preparation
See WWW.EPR-ART.COM for photography of southern Louisiana and Hurricane Katrina
Professor Edward P. Richards, III, JD, MPH - Webmaster