Case Title: Mello v. Cohen

Citation: 168 Vt. 639, 724 A.2d 471

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1998-12-22T00:00:00Z

Document:
Mello v. Cohen  (97-461); 168 Vt. 639; 724 A.2d 471

[Filed 22-Dec-1998]

                

                                 ENTRY ORDER

                       SUPREME COURT DOCKET NO. 97-461

                            SEPTEMBER TERM, 1998

Michael A. Mello	                }	APPEALED FROM:
                                        }
                                        }
     v.	                                }	Windsor Superior Court
                                        }	
Dr. Craig Cohen and the Center	        }
for Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery	}	DOCKET NO. 5243-96 WrC
	

       In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Plaintiff appeals the superior court's grant of defendants' summary
  judgment motion in this medical malpractice action based on lack of
  informed consent.  He claims the court erred in ruling that expert
  testimony was required to proceed to trial, thereby denying him his
  constitutional rights to a remedy and to a jury trial.  We affirm.

       Plaintiff asserts that defendant Cohen failed to obtain his informed
  consent before removing a tongue lesion.  Some facts are undisputed. 
  Plaintiff's family physician referred him to Cohen for a consultation
  concerning the lesion.  Upon examination and in light of plaintiff's
  medical history of alcoholism, heavy smoking, and cancer in his family,
  Cohen had strongly suspected the lesion was cancerous.  His suspicion of
  cancer and recommendation for removal and biopsy remained the same after a
  five-day course of antibiotics and a second examination.  The biopsy
  proved, however, that the lesion was not cancerous.  Plaintiff transferred
  his post-operative care to Rocco Addante, another oral surgeon.  From here,
  the parties' allegations diverge.

       According to the plaintiff, Addante prescribed mouth wash when
  plaintiff developed a second tongue lesion, which proved an effective cure. 
  Plaintiff contends that, had he been informed of the prescription
  mouth-wash option, he would never have agreed to the biopsy and would never
  have suffered the resulting pain, constipation, and tongue deformity.  He
  characterizes this case as the right to choose between surgical or
  non-surgical treatments.(FN1)

       Through the course of discovery plaintiff refused to allow Addante to
  produce his medical records for defendants.  Neither did he name Addante or
  anyone else as an expert to support his contention that prescription mouth
  wash constituted a treatment option for the first lesion or that the second
  lesion was even the same or similar to the first one.  The trial court held
  that expert testimony was required to establish what risks and treatment
  alternatives existed in light of the circumstances when the plaintiff
  agreed to the surgery.  Thus, the court granted defendants' motion for
  summary judgment because plaintiff failed to come forward with sufficient
  evidence concerning an element essential to his case.

       We review the grant of summary judgment using the same standard
  applied at the trial court.  Madden v. Omega Optical, Inc., 165 Vt. 306,
  309,