Opinion ID: 782823
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Assault/Battery

Text: 91 The Amended Complaint alleged both assault and battery claims. All defendants were granted summary judgment on these claims. While the plaintiffs have pursued their battery claim to some extent, they have failed to brief the issue of assault. This Court has held that issues will be deemed waived if they are not adequately briefed on appeal. Utahns for Better Transp., 305 F.3d at 1175, citing Phillips, 956 F.2d at 954 (deeming such claims waived under the general rule that even issues designated for review are lost if they are not actually argued in the party's brief). Accordingly, there is no need to review the district court's decision on the assault claim on the merits. See Murrell, 43 F.3d at 1389 n. 2. 92 Under Oklahoma law, in order to establish a claim of battery, a plaintiff must prove that: 1) a defendant, without consent, acted either with the intent of making a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff or with the intent of putting the plaintiff in apprehension of such a contact; and 2) the defendant's act resulted in a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff. See OUJI Civ. Inst. 19.6. If medical treatment is unauthorized and performed without consent, the result is a technical battery. Rosson v. Coburn, 876 P.2d 731, 734 (Okla.Ct.App. 1994); see also Scott v. Bradford, 606 P.2d 554, 557 (Okla.1979); Rolater v. Strain, 39 Okla. 572, 137 P. 96, 97 (1913). A `technical battery' occurs when a physician, in the course of treatment, exceeds the consent given by the patient. Rosson, 876 P.2d at 734 n. 6 quoting Black's Law Dictionary at 153 (6th ed.1990). 93 Consent, for tort liability purposes, is willingness in fact for conduct to occur. It may be manifested by action or inaction and need not be communicated to the actor. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 892(1). If words or conduct are reasonably understood by another to be intended as consent, they constitute apparent consent and are as effective as consent in fact. Id. at § 892(2). Consent can also be either apparent or found to be implied by custom. Id. at cmts. c, d. Apparent consent is present when the words or acts or silence and inaction [of the aggrieved party] would be understood by a reasonable person as intended to indicate consent and they are in fact so understood by the other. Id., cmt. c. In determining whether conduct would be understood by a reasonable person as indicating consent, the customs of the community are to be taken into account. Id., cmt. d. 94 The district court found no battery present in this case because it found no decision in which a recognized procedure performed in the standard manner in a physical examination constitutes a harmful or offensive touching.... Order Granting CAP's Motion for Summary Judgment, dated May 16, 2001 at 16, App. 207. It seems that the district court came to this conclusion after considering that the plaintiffs' expert said that the exam was in conformity to well-child exams. The district court was correct in this conclusion. However, this analysis ignores the fact that under Oklahoma law a technical battery occurs when medical personnel treat patients without consent. Presumably, what makes such contact offensive for purposes of liability for technical battery is the fact that the procedure is performed without consent. 95 As discussed above, both County Health Department and nurses Strayhorn and Baker were assured by CAP that proper consent had been obtained for the examinations. Strayhorn and Baker were assured by Peggy Terry that the proper consent forms were on file. Consent in the legal sense is present as to these defendants because, according to undisputed evidence in this case, it is the custom of the industry to rely on assurances from other health care professionals that proper consent has been obtained. The testimony of the plaintiffs' expert, advanced as a specialist in customs of the industry, supports this conclusion. The expert was asked can you ... agree that if you are informed that there are signed consent forms of the parents, that under that scenario, it is reasonable to proceed?; he replied: Yeah. I think there's a bit of a problem when you, you know, are an outside provider of services. This testimony demonstrates that it is customary to rely on such consent. Therefore, Baker and Strayhorn committed no battery because they had legal consent by custom, thus negating a claim for technical battery. The district court's disposition of the battery claim against the nurses is therefore affirmed. 96 The district court granted summary judgment to CAP on the battery claim on the ground that CAP had consent to arrange the examinations and that the examinations themselves did not deviate from the industry standard of care. ORDER of Granting CAP's Motion for Summary Judgment, dated May 16, 2001 at 16-7, App. 207-8. As discussed above, however, the plaintiffs have submitted sufficient evidence to withstand a motion for summary judgment regarding whether CAP had objectively reasonable grounds to believe that it had consent to authorize the examinations. For the same reason, summary judgment must be reversed with respect to CAP's alleged technical battery under Oklahoma law.