The plain-language issue played a key role in the ruling. The judge ruled that Carpenter's explanation of risks was inadequate. He had given his patient, Theresa Finch, a sheet entitled Impacted Teeth , a document written in technical language with relatively fine print. The judge said this did not meet the requirements for informed consent. Since Carpenter did not discuss them with Finch, the judge said it was reasonable for her to conclude that if a risk was not discussed, it did not apply.
Personal contact is the best way to ensure that patients have understood a message.
The judge ruled that Finch would have asked questions had Carpenter explained the risks adequately, and that she would have declined the procedure had she been properly informed of its risks.