Hutchinson v. U.S.
| Decision Date | 10 March 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 86-1970,86-1970 |
| Citation | 841 F.2d 966 |
| Parties | Timothy HUTCHINSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
Robert U. Bokelman, San Francisco, Cal., and Daniel U. Smith, Kentfield, Cal., for plaintiff-appellant.
Sandra L. Willis, Asst. U.S. Atty., San Francisco, Cal., for defendant-appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
Before GOODWIN, FARRIS and NELSON, Circuit Judges.
Timothy Hutchinson developed aseptic necrosis after doctors at the United States Health Services Hospital treated his asthma with prednisone. Hutchinson sued under the Federal Tort Claims Act, alleging that the doctors should not have treated him with prednisone and that they should have warned him of the risk of developing aseptic necrosis. After a bench trial, the district court ruled against Hutchinson. Hutchinson now appeals that portion of the ruling which dealt with the doctors' failure to warn.
Hutchinson contends that the district court misinterpreted California law in two respects. First, after Hutchinson had produced evidence of the doctors' nondisclosure of risks, the district court failed to require the United States to produce evidence that would justify the nondisclosure. Second, the district court assumed that the doctors' duty to warn depended on whether doctors in the community would have customarily provided warnings in the same situation. We review de novo the district court's interpretation of state law. Matter of McLinn, 739 F.2d 1395, 1397-98 (9th Cir.1984) (en banc).
At trial, Hutchinson showed that the doctors did not disclose the risk of developing aseptic necrosis. The district court erred by failing to recognize that the United States then had the burden of producing evidence that would justify the nondisclosure. See Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal. 3d 229, 104 Cal.Rptr. 505, 516, 502 P.2d 1, 12 (1972) (en banc). The district court also erred by assuming that nondisclosure could be justified by pointing to the common practices of doctors in the community. In this case, nondisclosure could only be justified if the information withheld would not have been material to the patient's decision. Id., 104 Cal.Rptr. at 515, 502 P.2d at 11. Material information is
that which the physician knows or should know would be regarded as significant by a reasonable person in the patient's position when deciding to accept or reject the recommended medical procedure. To be material, a fact must also be one which is not commonly appreciated.
Truman v. Thomas, 27 Cal.3d 285, 165 Cal.Rptr. 308, 611 P.2d 902, 905 (1980) (en banc) (citations omitted).
On remand, the district court must first determine whether the United States proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the risks of developing aseptic necrosis were not material. If the United States met its burden, then it cannot be liable. If it did not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ellison v. Shell Oil Co.
...1347, 1357 n. 7 (9th Cir.1980). The district court's interpretation of California law is reviewed independently. Hutchinson v. United States, 841 F.2d 966, 967 (9th Cir.1988). As a threshold matter, the parties dispute whether our review should address the grounds stated by the district jud......
-
U.S. v. Klimavicius-Viloria
... ... Id. at 1110. In an unrelated case, this led us to incorrectly conflate these two requirements and opine, in dicta, that the jury must determine nexus. United States v. Amparo, 68 F.3d 1222, 1226 ... ...
-
Mathis v. Morrissey
...the defendant bears the burden of proof with respect to materiality. 9 In support of their argument the plaintiffs cite Hutchinson v. U.S. (9th Cir.1988) 841 F.2d 966. In Hutchinson, the court made the same errors that plaintiffs make here. The court correctly cited Cobbs, but then erroneou......
-
Hanna v. US, CIV S-89-1507 PAN.
...(2) but for Dr. Hobbs' failure to provide the required information, plaintiff would have declined the surgery. Hutchinson v. United States, 841 F.2d 966, 968 (9th Cir.1988). To meet her burden, plaintiff must demonstrate "what ... a prudent person in the patient's position would have decide......