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

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

P met with D to discuss her desire not to have more children. Her family was experiencing financial difficulties. She wanted to return to work to support her family and to fulfill her career goals. D recommended a bipolar cauterization procedure and he guaranteed that she would not again become pregnant if she did so. In February 1984, D performed a laparoscopic bilateral tubal ligation by bipolar cauterization. On June 25, 1985, a pregnancy test confirmed that P was pregnant. On February 12, 1986, she give birth to a fourth child, and the next day she underwent a second sterilization procedure, known as bilateral salpingectomy. A pathology report showed that there had been a recanalization of the left fallopian tube. P sued D and assert that, if D had told her of the risk of recanalization, however small, she would initially have selected a different sterilization procedure. The judge concluded that a physician may properly be held liable if his negligent performance of a sterilization procedure permits conception. The judge also accepts as a valid potential basis of liability that, as alleged in the complaint, D negligently failed to advise P of the risk that the operation might not achieve its purpose. The court transferred the case on the issue of damages.

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

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