The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P's gynecologist, Dr. Glassman, detected a 'vague mass' in her right breast. The doctor referred P to Rothman (D) a surgeon. D expressed concern that the anomalies on the mammograms might be cancer and recommended a biopsy. P submitted to the biopsy procedure after receiving a confirmatory second opinion from a Dr. Slattery. D removed a piece of the suspect mass from P's breast and excised the nodes. The biopsies showed that both specimens were benign. P then developed a right arm and hand lymphedema, a swelling caused by inadequate drainage in the lymphatic system. The condition resulted from the excision of the lymph nodes. D did not advise P of this risk. P's experts testified that d should have informed P that lymphedema was a risk of the operation. D's experts testified that it was too rare to be discussed with a patient. Ps sued claiming that they were never told that the operation would include removal of the nodes and therefore that procedure constituted an unauthorized battery. Alternatively, they claimed that even if they had authorized the node excision, D was negligent in failing to warn them of the risk of lymphedema and therefore their consent was uninformed. The jury specifically rejected both claims because the trial court instructed on the reasonable physician standard of informed consent. Ps appealed, and the appellate court affirmed, and P appealed again.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.