2008 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit 1-10-2008 

# Hinm an v . Ru s so P r e c e de nt i al or N on-P r e c e de nt i al : N on-P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 06-3814

F o llow thi s and a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e and ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2008 D e c i sion s b y an author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i ll anova U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit ory

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin . C arl s on@l a

w . vi ll anova . e du . Re c omme nde d C it at ion " Hinm an v . R us s o " (2008). 2008 D e cisio n s . P ape r 1772. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi ll anova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2008/1772NOT P RE CE DE NT I AL UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT N o. 06- 3814 E M RE T T A HI NM AN; WI L L I AM HI NM AN,

A p p e llan ts v . M . D. J OS E P H DE L L O R US S O; NEW J ERS EY E YE CE NTE R; J O H N D O E S 1- 10; A B C C O R PO R A T I O N S 1- 10

_____________ O n A p p ea l Fro m the U n it ed S tat es D istri ct C o u rt

Fort he D i s t r i ctof N ew J er s ey (D . C . C ivil N o . 0 3 -C V -00 7 6 8 ) D i s t r i ctJ udge: H onor abl e W i l l i am G . B as s l er

____________ Subm i t t ed U nderT hi r d C i r cui tL . A . R . 34. 1( a)

on J anuary8, 2008

____________ B efor e: FI SH E R , H A R D I M A N A N D A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udges

(F il ed Jan u ary1 0 , 2 0 0 8 )

OP I NI ON2

A L D I SE R T , C i r cui tJ udge B eca us e w e w r i t e exc l us i vel yforthe part i es and the part i es ar e fa m i l i arw i t h t he fac t s and pr ocee di ngs bel ow , w e w i l l notr evi s i tthem her e. I. I nform ed cons entconce r ns a phy s i ci an’ s duty“t o di s cl os e t o a pat i enti nform at i on t hatw i l l enabl e [the pat i ent ] t o ‘ eval uat e know l edgea bl ythe opt i ons avai l abl e and the ri s k s a tte n d a n t u p o n e a c h ’ b e f o re s u b je c tin g th a t p a tie n t to a c o u rs e o f tr e a tm e n t.” M at t hi es v. M as t r om onaco, 733 A . 2d 456, 461 ( N . J . 1999) ( quot i ng Per na v. Pi r ozzi , 457 A .2 d 4 3 1 , 4 3 8 (N .J. 1 9 8 3 )). In N e w Je rse y , cla im s o f m e d ica l m a lp ra c tice a n d f a ilu re to o b ta in in f

o rm e d c o n s e n t a re “ s u b -g ro u p s o f a b ro a d c la im o f

m e d ic a l n e g lig e n c e .” H ow ar d v. U ni v. of M ed. and D ent i s t r yof N . J . , 800 A . 2d 73, 77 ( N . J . 2002) ( quot i ng T ei l haberv. G r eene , 727 A . 2d 518, 523 ( N . J . Super . C t . A pp. D i v. 1999) ) . U nderN ew J e rs e yla w , [t ] o es t abl i s h a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e form edi cal negl i gence

p re m ise d o n a th e o ryo f liab ili tyf

o r la c k o f

in f o rm e d c o n se n t, a p lain tiff

m u st s h o w (1 ) th e p h y sic ian f a iled to c o m p lyw ith t he [r eas onabl y - prudent - pat i ent ] s t andar d fordi s cl os ur e; ( 2) the u n d iscl o sed ri sk o cc u rred an d h arm ed the p lai n ti ff; ( 3 ) a r eas onabl e per s on underthe ci r cumst ance s w oul d nothave cons ent ed and s ubm i t t ed t o t he oper at i on ors ur gi cal pr ocedur e had he ors he bee n s o i nform ed; and ( 4) the oper at i on ors ur gi cal pr ocedur e w as a pr oxi m at e ca us e of plai nti ff’s i njur i es. Id. at 79 (qu o ti n g T eil h ab er, 72 7 A . 2 d at 52 4 ). H ere, w e are s at i sfi ed thatM s. H i nm an g ave inform ed co nsent t o D r. D el l o R usso3

t o per form t he LA SI K pr ocedur e. I n addi t i on, w e ar e s at i s fi ed thatunderexi s t i ng N ew J er s eyl aw D r . D el l o R us s o w as notr equi r ed t o pr ovi de M s . H i nm an w i t h a copyof the P a tien t In f

o rm a tio n B o o k let in o rd e r to o b tain h e r in f o rm e d c o n se n t. T h e tes tim o n ya t t ri al reveal ed thatM s. H i nm an d i scussed t he ri sks of t he p rocedu re w i t h D r. D el l o R usso and a nur s e on hi s s t aff . T he cons entform s i gned byM s . H i nm an i ndi cat ed thats he w as f u llya w a re o f

th e risk s o f

th e p ro c e d u re , tha t sh e h a d o b tain e d sa tisf a c to rya n sw e rs to a ll of herques t i ons and conc erns r egar di ng the pr ocedur e, and thats he had r ej ect ed al t ernat i ves t o t he LA SI K pr ocedur e. A ddi t i onal l y , the H i nm ans pr es ent ed no evi dence t hat D r. D el l o R usso’s fai l ure t o p rovi de h er w i t h the Pati ent I nfo rm at i on B oo kletw as a pr oxi m at e ca us e of he ri nj ur i es . T he form s i gned byM s . H i nm an det ai l ed the r i s ks of the proced ure, and t he ri sks di scussed on the co nsent form w ere s ub st anti al l ysi m i l ar t o those d is c u s s e d in th e P a tie n t I n f o rm a tio n B o o k le t. T h e re f o re , ex e rc isin g p len a ryre v iew , w e a re sa tisf ied th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id no terri n d eny i ng t he H i nm ans’ m oti on for j ud gm ent as a m at t er of l aw and did not abuse i t s di scr et i on i n d eny i ng t he H i nm ans’ m oti on for new tri al . W . V . R eal t y , Inc. v. N . Ins. C o. , 334 F. 3d 306, 311 ( 3d C i r . 2003) . W e al s o denythe H i nm ans ’ m ot i on t o cert i fyt he q u e stio n to th e N e w Je rse yS u p re m e C o u rt. II. W e ar e s i m i l ar l ys at i s fi ed thatthe D i s t r i ctJ udge di d notabus e hi s di s cr et i on by d en y ing the H inm an s’ m o ti o n to rec u se. E d elst ein v . W il en tz, 8 1 2 F . 2 d 1 2 8 , 1 3 1 (3d C ir .4

1987) . A j udge mustr ecus e hi m s el f i f “a r eas onabl e per s on, w i t h know l edge of al l the fa cts, w o u ld co n clud e tha t th e jud g e’s im p arti ali tym igh t r ea so n ab lyb e q u esti o n ed . ” In re K ens i ngt on I nt ’ l L t d. and Spr i ngfi el d A s s ocs . , L L C , 353 F. 3d 211, 220 ( 3d C i r . 2003) ( ci t i ng 28 U . S. C . § 455( a) ) . A j udge mustal s o r ecus e hi m s el f “[ w ] her e he ha s a per s onal b ias o r p re

ju d ice c o n c e rn in g a p a rty , o r p e rso n a l k n o w led g e o f d isp u ted e v id e n tiary fa c ts co n ce rnin g the p roc ee d ing . ” 2 8 U . S . C . § 4 5 5 (b)(1 ). H er e, t he D i s t r i ctJ udge expl ai ned on the r ecor d t hat , aft ertw o day s of tr i al , he lea rn e d f ro m h is in d e p e n d e n t, ad u lt d a u g h ter th a t sh e o b tain e d th e se rv ice s o f D r. D e llo R us s o fora LA SI K pr ocedur e appr oxi m at el yfoury ear s pr i ort o t he tr i al . U pon l earni ng t hi s , t he D i s t r i ctJ udge t erm i nat ed the conve r s at i on. T he D i s t r i ctJ udge had no i ndepende ntr ecol l ect i on of hi s daught er ’ s deci s i on t o us e D r . D el l o R us s o forthe pr ocedur e and t ook no par ti n herdeci s i on t o do s o. W e ar e thus s at i s fi ed thatthe D i s tr i ct Ju d g e d id n o t ab u se h is d isc re tio n in d e n y in g th e m o tio n to re c u se b e c a u se a re a so n a b le per s on w i t h know l edge of t hes e fa ct s w oul d notr eas onabl yques t i on hi s i m par t i al i t ynor d id h e h a v e k n o w led g e o f a n yd isp u ted f

a c ts o f th is c a se , n a m e lyw h e th e r D r. D e llo R us s o obt ai ned M s . H i nm an’ s i nform ed cons entforherpr ocedur e. III . Fi nal l y , t he H i nm ans ar gue thatthe D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ns t ruct i on t o couns el r egar di ng M s . H i nm an’ s behavi oron the w i t nes s s t and w arr ant s a new tr i al . B eca us e the H i nm ans ’ fai l ed t o obj ectt o t he i ns truct i on attr i al , w e appl ythe pl ai n err ors t andar d of5

r evi ew . R y derv. W es t i nghous e El ec. C orp. , 128 F. 3d 128, 136 ( 3d C i r . 1997) . A ppl y i ng t he pr ece pt s of pl ai n err orr evi ew , s ee U ni t ed St at es v. O l ano, 507 U . S. 725, 732- 734 (19 9 3 ), w e d o n o t fi n d itu n rea so n ab le fo r th e D istri ct C o u rtto se ek to h av e the jury eval uat e evi dence pr es ent ed bya l evel and compose d w i t nes s . T he w r i t t en tr ans cr i pt re v e a ls th a t th e D istric t C o u rt d id n o t w a n t th e ju ryto b e m a n ip u late d b ya p p e a ls to em o ti o n an d sym p athyan d there fo re so u g h t t o cu rb w h at i t perc eive d to b e M s. H inm an ’s exce s s i ve cry i ng. T he tr ans cr i pti ndi cat es thatthe j uryw as excus ed fr om the court r oom pr i ort o t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s i ns t ruct i on. T he exc hange be t w een the D i s t r i ctC our tand couns el fort he H i nm ans al s o s ugges t s thatM s . H i nm an w as notpr es enti n t he court r oom an d there fo re w as n o t i n ti m idated o r oth erw ise i n flu en ce d b ythe in stru cti o n . T h u s, w e a re s at i s fi ed thatno err ort hataff ect ed the out come of t he pr ocee di ngs occurr ed. W e have cons i der ed al l of the cont ent i ons r ai s ed bythe part i es and have concl uded th a t n o f u rt h e r d is c u s s io n is n e c e s s a ry. A ccor di ngl y , t he j udgm entof the D i s t r i ctC our tw i l l be af fi r m ed.