Title: Christman v. Davis

State: vermont

Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court

Document:

Christman v. Davis (2004-388); 179 Vt. 99; 889 A.2d 746

2005 VT 119

[Filed 21-Oct-2005]


       NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under
  V.R.A.P. 40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont
  Reports.  Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions,
  Vermont Supreme Court, 109 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05609-0801 of
  any errors in order that corrections may be made before this opinion goes
  to press.


                                 2005 VT 119

                                No. 2004-388


  Paul Christman	                         Supreme Court

                                                 On Appeal from
       v.	                                 Chittenden Superior Court


  Gordon H. Davis, DMD and	                 April Term, 2005
  Associates in Periodontics, PLC


  Matthew I. Katz, J.

  Craig Weatherly of Gravel and Shea, Burlington, for Plaintiff-Appellant.

  Ritchie E. Berger of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew, P.C., Burlington, for
    Defendants-Appellees.


  PRESENT:  Reiber, C.J., Dooley, Johnson and Skoglund, JJ., and
            Crawford, Supr. J.,  Specially Assigned

       ¶  1.  DOOLEY, J.  Plaintiff Paul Christman appeals a superior court
  order granting defendants summary judgment on his claim of medical battery. 
  Plaintiff claims (1) that material facts are disputed, and therefore
  summary judgment was inappropriate; and (2) that defendant periodontist
  performed a surgical procedure for which plaintiff did not consent and
  therefore defendant committed a battery.  We affirm.

       ¶  2.  Plaintiff consulted defendant Gordon Davis, a periodontist,
  (FN1) to treat his gum recession and root exposure.  Defendant discussed
  procedures to obtain root coverage including a tissue graft, and plaintiff
  consented to this procedure.  A tissue graft involves making vertical
  incisions around the exposed root; the incision is made to free gingival
  tissue and then donor tissue from the palate is grafted onto the root. 
  After administering a local anaesthetic, defendant began the procedure and
  determined that instead he would perform a flap procedure.  This procedure
  follows the same preliminary step as the graft, but after incision, the
  periodontist applies a protein, Emdogain, to the gum to help it adhere to
  the tooth, and no graft is made.  After surgery, plaintiff was surprised
  that he did not receive a graft.  He was upset to learn later that the
  procedure did not achieve full results and that he would need to undergo a
  tissue graft.
    
       ¶  3.  Plaintiff sued defendants for dental malpractice, lack of
  informed consent, and battery.  Plaintiff eventually dismissed the
  malpractice and lack of informed consent claims, and proceeded solely on
  the battery claim.  Defendants filed for summary judgment, arguing that
  common-law medical battery was preempted by Vermont's informed consent
  statute, 12 V.S.A. § 1909, and plaintiff was not battered because the flap
  procedure was within the bounds of plaintiff's consent.  In opposition to
  defendants' motion, plaintiff argued that the informed consent statute did
  not preempt a common-law claim based on battery, and defendant's failure to
  notify plaintiff in advance of the flap procedure, and obtain plaintiff's
  specific authorization to conduct this particular procedure, constituted a
  battery.  
   
       ¶  4.  The trial court ruled that the common-law battery claim was
  not preempted by statute because the statute was intended to define medical
  torts based on negligence, and battery is an intentional tort.  See Wilson
  v. Smith, 144 Vt. 358, 361,