Parr v. Palmyra Park Hospital, Inc., 51954

• Decision Date: 07 September 1976
• Docket Number: Nos. 1,No. 51954,3,2,51954,s. 1
• Citation: 228 S.E.2d 596,139 Ga.App. 457
• Parties: John PARR v. PALMYRA PARK HOSPITAL, INC
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals

Page 596

228 S.E.2d 596

139 Ga.App. 457

John PARR v. PALMYRA PARK HOSPITAL, INC.

No. 51954.

Court of Appeals of Georgia, Division Nos. 1, 2, 3.

Sept. 7, 1976.

Malone & Percilla, Thomas Wm. Malone, Albany, for appellant.

Watson, Spence, Lowe & Chambless, G. Stuart Watson, Albany, for appellee.

WEBB, Judge.

John Parr was scheduled for a prostatectomy by Dr. Kevin Lane, a urologist, at a public hospital in Albany and was told by Dr. Lane to obtian blood from private sources and have it on standby as he would probably require transfusion. The surgery was subsequently performed, however, at the appellee hospital, a private facility where blood for transfusions is made available by the hospital as a service for physicians. Dr. Lane made no determination as to whether blood would be available there and Palmyra Park Hospital does not require patients to supply blood in advance of use. The hospital administrator never spoke to Parr regarding blood prior to the surgery. Dr. Lane could not remember specifically telling Parr about the risk of hepatitis associated with blood transfusions but he discussed the risk of surgery in general quite extensively.

During the course of surgery Parr required two blood transfusions. One unit of the blood was obtained from a voluntary donor and the other from a commercial blood bank. Parr contracted acute hepatitis and filed a three count complaint alleging that the hepatitis was the result of receiving 'unwholesome, impure and adulterated' blood supplied by the appellee hospital. Counts 2 and 3 were stricken pursuant to Code Ann. § 105-1105, which defines the transfusion of blood as a service rather than a sale and makes liability contingent upon proof of negligence.

Count 1, sounding in negligence, was based upon the premise that a hospital utilizing blood obtained from paid donors has a duty to warn a patient admitted for elective surgery of the increased risk of hepatitis he will encounter as a consequence of the expected transfusion. The hospital's motion for summary judgment was granted as a result of the trial court's application of this court's recent decisions in Young v. Yarn, 136 Ga.App. 737, 222 S.E.2d 113 and Kenney v. Piedmont Hospital, 136 Ga.App. 660, 666(8), 222 S.E.2d 162, and is the subject of the instant appeal. We affirm.

Those cases held that 'Until 1971 there was some question as to whether the 'Informed Consent Doctrine' was applicable to our state. See Mull v. Emory University, Inc., 114 Ga.App. 63, 65(5), 150 S.E.2d 276. That year the General Assembly enacted the Georgia Medical Consent Law (Ga.L.1971, pp. 438, 441) adding Chapter 88-29 to the Code. In that statute the legislature declared in § 88-2906 the following: 'A consent to medical and surgical treatment which discloses in general terms the treatment or course of treatment in connection with which it is given and which is duly evidenced in writing and signed by the patient or other person or persons authorized to consent pursuant to the terms hereof, shall be conclusively presumed to be a valid consent in the absence of fraudulent misrepresentations of material facts in obtaining the same.' (Ga.L.1971, pp. 438, 440).'

'In Young v. Yarn, 136 Ga.App. 737, 222 S.E.2d 113, we derived from that statutory directive the following conclusion: 'The legislature has defiend the physician's duty of disclosure to his patient; the physician must inform the patient of the general terms of treatment in order to effect a valid consent. In that we have decided that this duty does not include a disclosure of 'risks of treatment,' appellant cannot sustain an action alleging that defendant breached his duty in failing to warn of the risks of treatment or that her consent was thereby rendered invalid. " Kenney v. Piedmont Hospital, 136 Ga.App. 660, 667, 222 S.E.2d 162, 168, supra.

The statute refers to 'medical and surgical treatment' and there is nothing in its language which would restrict such treatment to that administered by a 'duly licensed physician,' rather than a hospital. Moreover, the evidence in this case clearly shows that the hospital's only contact with the plaintiff-patient was through his personal physician who explained to him the risks incident to the proposed surgery. The hospital had no dealings with the plaintiff, merely following orders of the physician which was normal procedure. The blood supplied by the hospital was supplied as a service by the hospital to the surgeons operating there.

Young and Kenney interpreted the statute to require that a physician need only disclose in general terms the treatment to be rendered in order to effect a valid consent; that this duty does not include a disclosure of 'risks of treatment'; and that an action alleging that the defendant breached his duty in failing to warn of the risks of treatment, or that the consent was thereby rendered invalid, cannot be sustained. Thus, the traditional doctrine of informed consent has been specifically rejected and whatever information must be disclosed as to the general course of treatment under the Georgia statute does not include legally specified risks. ¹ Surely if the physician who is treating the patient, who has responsibility for seeing that he is properly treated and that blood is available, and who is the only one who has personal contact with the patient is required to do no more than inform the patient of the general terms of treatment and is not required to disclose the risks of treatment, the hospital, which deals only with the doctor and supplies blood for his patient as a service for the physician is under no greater obligation or higher standard of disclosure. To require a hospital to contact a patient to discuss the risks of a surgical procedure involving the transfusion of blood would be a presumptuous invasion of the province of the physician, on whom rests the responsibility of the patient's welfare.

We further conclude that no written consent is required. The Young opinion clearly indicates that a properly drafted consent from obtained in conformity with the Georgia Medical Consent Law would bar a potential claim by making such consent 'conclusively valid.' However, where the form is inadequate as in Young, or where there is no written consent shown as in the instant case, summary judgment could still be obtained by establishing that the plaintiff-patient knew, from any source, ² the general course of treatment to be undertaken. See generally, Tanner & Schroder, Medical Malpractice, 12 Ga. S.B.J. 197 (April, 1976). Therefore, under the evidence in this case, the trial court properly granted summary judgment as against the plaintiff's contention that the defendant hospital was negligent in not informing the plaintiff of the alleged greater risk incident to the use of commercial blood.

Judgment affirmed.

BELL, C.J., and CLARK, STOLZ, MARSHALL and McMURRAY, JJ., concur.

DEEN, P.J., and QUILLIAN, J., dissent.

SMITH, J., not participating.

QUILLIAN, Judge (dissenting).

While on the trial of a negligence case, the burden is on the plaintiff to establish the defendant's negligence, on motion for summary judgment, where the movant is the defendant, then he has the burden of producing proof which conclusively negates at...