Scott v. Bradford

606 P.2d 554 (Okla. 1979)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Scott (P) was advised that she had several fibroid tumors on her uterus and was referenced to Bradford (D) for surgery. P signed the routine consent form at the hospital prior to getting her hysterectomy. After surgery, P experienced incontinence. P sought another doctor and discovered that she had a vesico-vaginal fistula which permitted urine to leak from her bladder to her vagina. After three more surgeries, the problem was finally fixed. P sued D under malpractice, claiming that D failed to advise her of the risks involved or of available alternatives to surgery. P maintains that had she been properly informed she would have refused the surgery. The trial court instructed the jury of a physician’s duty to disclose material risks and the feasibility of alternatives. The case was given to the jury and P objected to the instructions. The jury gave the verdict to D and P appealed.