Opinion ID: 2194643
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Mr. Hill rendered his informed consent.

Text: Mr. Hill also argues that the trial judge erred in granting the Motion for Judgment on his informed consent claim. He contends he was not given sufficient information to choose an internal fixation versus external fixation procedure because he was not informed that there was a greater risk of infection [13] with an internal fixation. [14] [T]o recover on a claim of lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must prove that there was an undisclosed risk that was material; that the risk materialized, injuring plaintiff; and that plaintiff would not have consented to the procedure if she had been informed of the risk. A material risk is a risk which a reasonable person would consider significant in deciding whether to undergo a particular medical treatment. Miller-McGee v. Washington Hosp. Ctr., 920 A.2d 430, 440 (D.C.2007) (quoting Abbey v. Jackson, 483 A.2d 330, 332 (D.C. 1984)). We have stated that at a minimum, a physician must disclose the nature of the condition, the nature of the proposed treatment, any alternate treatment procedures, and the nature and degree of risks and benefits inherent in undergoing and in abstaining from the proposed treatment. Crain, supra note 14, 443 A.2d at 562 (noting that a physician need not advise a patient concerning risks of which a patient already has actual knowledge). Expert testimony is required to establish the nature of the risks inherent in a particular treatment, the probabilities of therapeutic success, the frequency of the occurrence of particular risks, the nature of available alternatives to treatment and whether or not disclosure [of particular risks] would be detrimental to a patient. Miller-McGee, supra, 920 A.2d at 440. Dr. Bloss offered the following testimony on the issue of informed consent: Ms. Holt Q: Can you tell us based upon a national standard of care what information an orthopedic surgeon would provide to Mr. Hill. Strike that for a minute. Have you been in a situation where you as an orthopedic surgeon do this? A: Yes; I was on the board of the Counsel of American Academy of Orthopedic surgeons where we reviewed all these things, a member of audit committees, and gone to hospitals and audited them. Q: And based upon that experience are you able to tell us what was insufficient about the information Dr. Levitt provided to Mr. Hill on [July 22, 1997] about the repair of his distal tibia and fibula fracture? Defense Counsel: Objection. The court: Sustained. This testimony was insufficient to establish the national standard of care with respect to informed consent on this issue because Dr. Bloss' opinion was based on his personal experience, and did not provide a basis for a national standard of care. However, expert testimony is not necessary on all elements of a claim for lack of informed consent. For instance, expert testimony is not necessary to establish the scope of or the breach of the duty to inform one's patients before treating them. Crain, supra note 14, 443 A.2d at 563. Therefore, whether Dr. Levitt informed Mr. Hill of the greater risk of the procedure elected, is a question for the jury and is essentially a question of credibility, and not of science. Tavakoli-Nouri, supra, 745 A.2d at 942. The trial court correctly concluded that there was no issue for the jury because Mr. Hill signed a consent form which indicated that the risks associated with the initial surgery performed by Dr. Levitt were explained to him. [15] Mr. Hill modified the consent form slightly and requested that his anesthesiologists be board certified. Appellant's signature and hand-written modification to the form are strong evidence that Mr. Hill rendered his informed consent. See, e.g., Graff v. Malawer, 592 A.2d 1038, 1041 (D.C.1991) (finding Judgment as a Matter of Law appropriate because the testimonial and documentary evidence in the record, particularly the consent form that bore what he admitted was his signature, is so overwhelmingly contrary to [appellant's] position [that he lacked informed consent.]). [16] The trial court did not err in granting judgment on this issue.