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

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

Scott (P) was advised that she had several fibroid tumors on her uterus and was referenced to Bradford (D) for surgery. P signed the routine consent form at the hospital prior to getting her hysterectomy. After surgery, P experienced incontinence. P sought another doctor and discovered that she had a vesico-vaginal fistula which permitted urine to leak from her bladder to her vagina. After three more surgeries, the problem was finally fixed. P sued D under malpractice, claiming that D failed to advise her of the risks involved or of available alternatives to surgery. P maintains that had she been properly informed she would have refused the surgery. The trial court instructed the jury of a physician’s duty to disclose material risks and the feasibility of alternatives. The case was given to the jury and P objected to the instructions. The jury gave the verdict to D and P appealed.

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

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