Brayden had a long history of intestinal disorder. After several failed non-invasive treatments, it was suggested to him that he undergo a colonoscopy as a means of better diagnosing his problem. He spent five minutes prior to the procedure consulting with the doctor who performed the colonoscopy. He was told by the doctor that these procedures usually are simple and for the most part problem-free. Brayden agreed to undergo the procedure. During the course of the colonoscopy his bowel was perforated and he was required to undergo a significant open surgical procedure to save his life. Brayden sued the doctor for lack of informed consent. At trial, the expert evidence established that the risks of bowel perforation were material risks and as such ought to have been disclosed. Brayden in fact testified that had he been told of the risk of bowel perforation he would have not undergone the colonoscopy. However, the judge hearing the case made a finding that a reasonable person with Brayden’s condition having been properly informed of all the risks would have undergone the colonoscopy. In these circumstances, the judge will likely then proceed to
a. allow the action because of lack of informed consent.
b. allow the action because of the fact that Brayden himself testified he would not have undergone the procedure had he been told of the risks of bowel perforation.
c. dismiss the action because a reasonable person in the position of the plaintiff would have proceeded with the colonoscopy had they been informed of the materials risks.
d. dismiss the action because there is no causation.
e. allow the action because Brayden had to undergo an unexpected and unanticipated life-saving surgery.
Quick Reply
