Ditlow v. Kaplan
| Decision Date | 21 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | No. 65-69,65-69 |
| Citation | 181 So.2d 226 |
| Parties | Rochelle DITLOW and her husband, Israel Ditlow, Appellants, v. Dr. Allan A. KAPLAN, Appellee. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Nichols, Gaither, Beckham, Colson & Spence and Robert Orseck, Miami, for appellants.
Blackwell, Walker & Gray and Paul R. Larkin, Jr., Miami, for appellee.
Before HENDRY, C. J., and TILLMAN PEARSON and CARROLL, JJ.
The plaintiffs appeal a final judgment which was entered upon a directed verdict for the defendant. The action was against Mrs. Ditlow's physician for an alleged failure to secure her informed consent for a diagnostic operative procedure which resulted in her injury.
At the conclusion of all the evidence, the defendant renewed his motion for a directed verdict. The trial judge reserved ruling on the motion, and submitted the case to the jury. After a jury verdict for the plaintiffs, the trial judge directed the verdict, and entered the judgment which is appealed. We affirm.
The record indicates that the trial judge had reached his decision that the defendant's motion for directed verdict should be granted prior to submitting the case to the jury. We commend the use of this practice because in the event we should have determined that it was necessary to reverse the ruling upon the motion for directed verdict it would not have been necessary to retry the case.
Mrs. Ditlow, plaintiff, was a woman of mature years, and had a stomach condition which caused her physician to suspect cancer. This physician advised a gastroscopic procedure which included a biopsy. He recommended the defendant-doctor as a specialist in the procedure. The plaintiff was informed that this surgical procedure entailed some risk, and she signed a consent. During the performance of the procedure, her esophagus was punctured. It was demonstated that she did not have cancer, and that remedial surgery for the punctured esophagus was successful. Expert testimony established that there are 16 possible risks involved in the medical procedure followed. The record also reveals that the incidence, of the realization of the risk which occurred, is approximately one in five hundred.
Before operating upon the plaintiff, the defendant-doctor was required to obtain her informed consent. Chambers v. Nottebaum, Fla.App.1957, 96 So.2d 716; Zaretsky v. Jacobson, Fla.App.1958, 99 So.2d 730. There is little dispute with regard to the above proposition but the problem arises when a determination is sought to be made as to whether informed consent exists in given factual circumstances.
The plaintiff contends that the defendant failed to obtain the necessary informed consent because he did not advise his patient of the specific risks inherent in the performance of the procedure.
It should be noted at this juncture that the plaintiff is not claiming on this appeal that the defendant was guilty of any negligence in the manner in which the gastroscopy was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mason v. Ellsworth
...1 Cal.App.3d 790, 82 Cal.Rptr. 67 (1969). Di Filippo v. Preston, 3 Storey 539, 53 Del. 539, 173 A.2d 333 (1961); Ditlow v. Kaplan, 181 So.2d 226 (Fla.App.1965); Visingardi v. Tirone, 178 So.2d 135 (Fla.App.1965); Bowers v. Talmago, 159 So.2d 888 (Fla.1963); Grosjean v. Spencer, 258 Iowa 685......
-
Logan v. Greenwich Hosp. Ass'n
...to testify about it. See, e.g., Shetter v. Rochelle, 2 Ariz.App. 358, 409 P.2d 74 (1965); DiFilippo v. Preston, supra; Ditlow v. Kaplan, 181 So.2d 226 (Fla.App.1965); Nishi v. Hartwell, 52 Hawaii 188, 52 Hawaii 296, 473 P.2d 116, 121 (1970); Grosjean v. Spencer, 258 Iowa 685, 140 N.W.2d 139......
-
Bogorff By and Through Bogorff v. Koch
...5th DCA 1983), rev. denied, 450 So.2d 488 (Fla.1984); Thomas v. Berrios, 348 So.2d 905, 908 (Fla. 2d DCA 1977); Ditlow v. Kaplan, 181 So.2d 226, 228 (Fla. 3d DCA 1965).11 The record contains the package inserts for methotrexate as well as the FDA applications and supporting documents and PD......
-
Canterbury v. Spence
...70 E. g., Shetter v. Rochelle, 2 Ariz.App. 358, 409 P.2d 74, 86 (1965), modified, 2 Ariz.App. 607, 411 P.2d 45 (1966); Ditlow v. Kaplan, 181 So.2d 226, 228 (Fla.App.1965); Williams v. Menehan, 191 Kan. 6, 379 P.2d 292, 294 (1963); Kaplan v. Haines, 96 N.J.Super. 242, 232 A.2d 840, 845 (1967......