Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00971/USCOURTS-cand-4_05-cv-00971-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question: Personal Injury

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

NOT FOR CITATION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

KEVIN DIMMICK,

No. C 05-0971 PJH

Plaintiff,

v. ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S

MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

Defendant.

_______________________________/

Defendant’s (“the government’s”) motion for summary judgment came on for hearing

on May 10, 2006, before this court. Plaintiff Kevin Dimmick (“Dimmick”) appeared through

his counsel, Kate Wells and Sally Williams. The government appeared through its counsel,

Abraham Simmons. Having read the papers and listened to arguments, and having

carefully considered the relevant legal authority, for the reasons stated on the record, the

court DENIES the government’s motion for summary judgment as to Dimmick’s sole

surviving negligence claim. Additionally, for the reasons stated on the record, the court

DENIES Dimmick’s motion for a continuance pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure

56(f).

As noted on the record, the court finds that there is a triable issue of fact regarding

Dimmick’s negligence claim based on the government’s failure to obtain his informed

consent prior to prescribing drugs in anticipation of his potential participation in the

investigational drug studies. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248

Case 4:05-cv-00971-PJH Document 40 Filed 05/12/06 Page 1 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

(1986).

 In the recent motion papers, both parties appear to miss the focus of Dimmick’s

surviving claim and mistakenly advocate an “all or nothing” approach. This court has

already found in two prior orders that Dimmick was never a human experimentation

subject. However, that does not necessarily mean that Dimmick was simply a patient

seeking treatment, either. In this court’s February 3, 2006 order, the court specifically

noted that “neither party has addressed the specific issue of whether defendant’s

prescription of medication in anticipation of potential participation in a human

experimentation study required Dimmick’s informed consent.” In the most recent papers,

the parties again completely fail to address that issue. Thus, while it is clear that pursuant

to Dimmick’s status as a patient, he is entitled to the garden-variety informed consent

duties under California law, what is not clear is whether he is entitled to something more

based on his status as a potential or prospective study participant. 

To assist the parties in preparing for trial, the court sets forth pertinent California law

regarding garden-variety informed consent claims. However, this is intended only as a

starting point. As noted, the parties need to examine California law not only as it is

pertinent to garden-variety informed consent claims, but also with respect to Dimmick’s

particular status in this case as a potential or prospective study participant. 

Liability for negligence under California law requires proof of the following elements:

(1) a legal duty of care; (2) a breach of that duty; and (3) causation. Ann M. v. Pacific

Shopping Ctr., 6 Cal.4th 666, 673 (Cal. 1993). Under California law, a physician has a duty

“of reasonable disclosure of the available choices with respect to proposed therapy and of

the dangers inherently and potentially involved.” Arato v. Avedon, 5 Cal.4th 1172, 1183

(Cal. 1993) (en banc) (quoting Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229, 242 (Cal. 1972)). In addition

to warning of potential risks of treatment, under California law, “in order to satisfy his or her

duty to the patient and to obtain the patient’s informed consent, [a physician must] disclose

personal interests unrelated to the patient’s health, whether research-related or economic,

Case 4:05-cv-00971-PJH Document 40 Filed 05/12/06 Page 2 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

that may affect his or her medical judgment.” Levy et al., 3 California Torts, § 31.14[4A],

Lack of Informed Consent (2006) (citing Moore v. Regents of Univ. of Cal., 51 Cal.3d 120,

129, 131-32 (Cal. 1990)).

Recently, a California appellate court held that the existence or nonexistence of

written consent is not dispositive regarding the sufficiency of the disclosure. See

Quintanilla v. Dunkelman, 133 Cal.App.4th 95, 115-16 (Cal. Ct. App. 2005). In Quintanella,

the California appellate court held that the plaintiff’s written, signed consent form was not

conclusive proof of informed consent. See id. In holding that “a signed consent is not

entitled to conclusive proof of informed consent,” the court noted:

The law is clear in California that the existence of informed consent is an

issue of fact for the jury. The question has been described as ‘a peculiarly

fact-bound assessment which juries are especially well-suited to make.’ In

administering the doctrine of informed consent, ‘each patient presents a

separate problem, . . . the patient’s mental and emotional condition is

important and in certain cases may be crucial, and . . . in discussing the

element of risk a certain amount of discretion must be employed consistent

with the full disclosure of facts necessary to informed consent. 

Id. (citing Arato, 5 Cal.4th at 1185-86).

Regarding causation for a negligence claim based on lack of informed consent,

under California law, “[t]here must be a causal relationship between the physician’s failure

to inform and the injury to the plaintiff.” Levy et al., 3 California Torts, § 31.14[4A], Lack of

Informed Consent (2006). 

The causal connection arises only if it is established that had revelation been

made consent to treatment would not have been given. To avoid the problem

of the patient’s 20/20 hindsight, the test of whether or not the patient would

have consented to the procedure is an objective, not a subjective one. The

test to be applied is what a prudent person in the patient’s position would

have decided if adequately informed of all significant perils.

Id. (citing Cobb, 8 Cal.3d at 245).

CONCLUSION

The government’s motion for summary judgment is DENIED, and Dimmick’s motion

for a continuance under Rule 56(f) is DENIED. Additionally, as stated on the record,

Dimmick will not be permitted to expand his surviving informed consent claim to include a

Case 4:05-cv-00971-PJH Document 40 Filed 05/12/06 Page 3 of 4
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

failure to monitor or to timely respond to his complaints. Dimmick’s treating physician, Dr.

Green, will be afforded leeway in his testimony. However, the court noted that Dimmick

may submit in writing his objections related to the government’s May 1, 2006, disclosures. 

Additionally, the court’s denial of the government’s motion for summary judgment should

obviate the need for such a discovery motion. Nevertheless, to the extent that Dimmick

continues to object to such disclosures, he must file and serve his written objection no later

than seven days from the date of this order.

The case is set for a three-day bench trial to commence October 16, 2006, and the

pretrial conference is set for September 21, 2006. As the court noted on the record, the

parties will be required to submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law in

advance of the pretrial conference. A pretrial order will follow.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 12, 2006 ______________________________

PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON

United States District Judge

Case 4:05-cv-00971-PJH Document 40 Filed 05/12/06 Page 4 of 4