P had uncontrollable leakage of urine and discharge from her vagina. After performing a physical examination, D determined that she was suffering from urinary stress incontinence due to a mild cystocele, which is a bulging of the bladder into the vagina. D determined that she had cervicitis, which was causing the vaginal discharge. D also found that she had multiple fibroid tumors of the uterus. D recommended a surgical procedure known as an MMK in order to suspend the bladder and either a hysterectomy or cryosurgery to freeze the infected tip of the cervix. D contends that he advised her of the general risks of any surgery, viz. infection, bleeding, and death, and that, with respect to the bladder suspension, he explained to her the risk that the procedure could fail and the possibility that she would be unable to void. With respect to the cryosurgery, he contends he told her that she would have severe vaginal discharge for two weeks and a milder discharge for six weeks thereafter. P denies that any of these risks were explained to her. Both parties, however, agree that D did not advise her of the risk that the cervix could become adhered to the wall of the vagina. P decided to proceed with the bladder suspension and cryosurgery. She underwent these procedures. Post-surgically, P's cervix adhered to the wall of her vagina. D prescribed medication for this condition, but P became dissatisfied with his care and saw another surgeon who eventually performed a total abdominal hysterectomy, bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy which involves the removal of both ovaries, and another bladder suspension. Ps filed a complaint with the Indiana Department of Insurance. A medical review panel was convened and, the panel unanimously found that there was no evidence to support the allegation that the surgery had been negligently performed. Similarly, it found no evidence to support the allegation that D had abandoned P. With respect to the informed consent issue, the panel ruled: D did not advise P of the complication of cervical adhesion to the vagina; the Panel further determined that such non-disclosure does not constitute a failure to comply with the appropriate standard of care, as such complication is not considered a risk of such surgery requiring disclosure to the patient. Ps filed a civil complaint and D moved for summary judgment relying on the expert opinion issued by the medical review panel. Ps did not file an affidavit or other evidence in opposition to the motion for summary judgment but argued to the trial court that the 'prudent patient' standard should be utilized in evaluating informed consent claims. D got the judgment and Ps appealed. The court of appeals held that an issue of fact remained as to whether the risk of cervical adhesion to the vagina was a 'material risk.' It reversed. D appealed.

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

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

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

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