Title: Fore v. Brown
Citation: 544 So. 2d 955
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: April 28, 1989

544 So. 2d 955 (1989)
Stephen Nelson FORE, Jr., and Carolyn Fore
v.
Charles H. BROWN, M.D.
88-50.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
April 28, 1989.
Ralph Loveless of Loveless &amp; Banks, Mobile, for appellants.
W. Boyd Reeves and Michael E. Upchurch of Armbrecht, Jackson, DeMouy, Crowe, Holmes &amp; Reeves, Mobile, for appellee.
SHORES, Justice.
Stephen and Carolyn Fore appeal from a summary judgment in favor of Dr. Charles Brown on Mr. Fore's medical malpractice claim and Mrs. Fore's loss of consortium claim.
In preparing Mr. Fore for gallbladder surgery, Dr. Burch, Mr. Fore's attending physician, performed an upper gastrointestinal series of tests that revealed an "irregularity" in Mr. Fore's lower esophagus. Recognizing the possibility that this "irregularity" could be cancer, Dr. Burch had an esophagogastroduodenoscopy performed. This is a diagnostic procedure whereby a flexible, lighted, tube-like scope is passed through the esophagus and the stomach and into the upper intestine to allow the physician to examine the subject area. Mr. Fore was admitted into Mobile Infirmary, and Dr. Burch associated Dr. Charles H. Brown to perform the procedure.
Dr. Brown discussed the procedure with Mr. Fore, and told him that the risk of perforation of the esophagus during the procedure was approximately 1 in 10,000, and that complications rarely occurred.
During the esophagogastroduodenoscopy, Dr. Brown discovered a stricture, which is an area of the esophagus that is narrowed by scar tissue. Dr. Brown, believing that the stricture had to be opened before Mr. Fore's gallbladder could be removed, performed a dilation, a procedure whereby a tapered plastic device is inserted into the esophagus to expand it. The risk of perforation of the esophagus during a dilation procedure is increased to 1 in 100. Dr. Brown did not, at any time, discuss the dilation procedure with Mr. Fore.
Later the same day, after the procedure was completed, and while he was still in hospital, Mr. Fore began experiencing severe pain while eating. It was discovered that he had a perforation in his lower esophagus that required emergency surgery.
Mr. Fore filed suit against Mobile Infirmary and Dr. Brown, on September 4, 1986, alleging negligence. Mrs. Fore filed suit for her loss of consortium as a result *956 of the injury to her husband. Pursuant to a pro tanto settlement, Mobile Infirmary was dismissed with prejudice. Dr. Brown filed a motion for summary judgment, which was granted on June 24, 1988. The Fores appealed.
The sole issue argued on this appeal is whether summary judgment was proper on Mr. Fore's claim that Dr. Brown was negligent in failing to obtain his informed consent before performing the dilation procedure on him.
We hold that it was not.
In Fain v. Smith, 479 So. 2d 1150 (Ala. 1985), this Court adopted the objective standard for determining causation in a cause of action for negligent failure to obtain a patient's informed consent. This objective standard requires the fact-finder to consider whether a reasonable person with all the characteristics of the patient would choose to undergo the procedure with knowledge of the risk involved. Furthermore, the testimony of the patient, notwithstanding hindsight, is material and relevant and is entitled to be considered by the jury.
For summary judgment to be appropriate, the moving party must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that he is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. Rule 56(c), Ala.R.Civ.P.
In his affidavit in opposition to Dr. Brown's motion for summary judgment, Mr. Fore stated:
An issue of fact exists as to whether Mr. Fore would have consented to the dilation procedure. Further, it remains a question of fact whether a reasonable person with Mr. Fore's characteristics would have consented to undergo the procedure under the circumstances, with knowledge of the risks involved.
We hold, therefore, that summary judgment was improper in this case, and we reverse the judgment and remand the cause for a trial on the merits.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and JONES, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.