Opinion ID: 1957016
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: We Decline to Carve Out Material Risk Exception for Cases When Omitted Information Relates to Doctor's Disciplinary History.

Text: Although the Currans acknowledge that in Nebraska, the professional theory governs informed consent, they argue that their case is distinguishable from the typical claim for failure to obtain informed consent, brief for appellants at 16, and that thus, the material risk theory should govern. They contend their case warrants an exception because Matthew was insufficiently informed about the doctor's disciplinary history, not about the operation itself. And when the unwarned risk relates to a doctor's disciplinary history, we should apply the material risk theoryasking whether a reasonable person would consider that information material, not whether ordinary doctors would disclose that information. Although enticing, we decline the invitation. Our research could not uncover precedent for defining the standard of care differently depending on the kind of risks involved. Although other jurisdictions have questioned what role a doctor's experience should play in the context of informed consent, they are unsurprisingly split on the issue. Some courts adopt a bright-line rule requiring disclosure of treatment risks, but not of a doctor's experience. See, Duttry v. Patterson, 565 Pa. 130, 771 A.2d 1255 (2001); Whiteside v. Lukson, 89 Wash.App. 109, 947 P.2d 1263 (1997). Others require doctor-related disclosures only when mandated by the standard of care. See, Duffy v. Flagg, 88 Conn.App. 484, 869 A.2d 1270 (2005); Tashman v. Gibbs, 263 Va. 65, 556 S.E.2d 772 (2002); Johnson v. Kokemoor, 199 Wis.2d 615, 545 N.W.2d 495 (1996); Arato v. Avedon, 5 Cal.4th 1172, 858 P.2d 598, 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 131 (1993). The evidence proffered here would not be required under either approach. The Currans plainly limit their claim to warnings about Buser's disciplinary history, not the operation. The Currans never established that the standard of care required such disclosures. Rather, they ask us to adopt a different standard of care for a narrow class of plaintiffs. Not only is their approach unprecedented, it contravenes the Legislature's adoption of the professional theory by supplanting, in a single narrow context, the Legislature's judgment. Instead, our statutes comport with an approach that requires doctor-related disclosures only when mandated by the standard of care. Under § 44-2816, informed consent means consent to a procedure based on information which would ordinarily be provided to the patient under like circumstances by health care providers engaged in a similar practice in the locality or in similar localities. While the Currans ask us to distinguish treatment risks from doctor-related risks, § 44-2816 does not make this distinction. It asks only whether similarly situated doctors would ordinarily provide the information. We give statutory language its plain and ordinary meaning and will not resort to interpretation to ascertain the meaning of statutory words which are plain, direct, and unambiguous. See McCray v. Nebraska State Patrol, 271 Neb. 1, 710 N.W.2d 300 (2006). The language of the statute is unambiguous, and we are bound by it. Under § 44-2816, a doctor's disciplinary history, like other doctor-related risks, is required only when mandated by the standard of care. As in the past, we recognize that the professional theory places a patient, who more than likely lacks a medical background or training, in the precarious position of exploring and inquiring about adverse consequences of a surgical procedure. Eccleston v. Chait, 241 Neb. 961, 969, 492 N.W.2d 860, 865 (1992). Nonetheless, we do not write on a blank slate; the Legislature adopted the professional theory in § 44-2816, and its language binds this court to that theory.