Opinion ID: 1387022
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Expert Medical Testimony

Text: Defendants argue that, because plaintiffs failed to establish their claim based on lack of informed consent through expert medical testimony, the trial court properly granted their motion for a JNOV. Plaintiffs retort by asserting that they met their evidentiary burden as to the standard of disclosure through Dr. Strode's testimony. We agree with plaintiffs, but for different reasons. As previously discussed, a plaintiff is not required to prove the standard of disclosure required for informed consent with medical expert evidence, but is required to prove by expert medical evidence the materiality of the risk of harm to which the plaintiff was subjected. It is clear that a defendant-physician's testimony may satisfy this burden. See Nishi, 52 Haw. at 196-97, 473 P.2d at 121 (defendant-doctor's testimony sufficient to meet expert medical evidence burden required to prove an informed consent claim). Dr. Strode testified that urologists performing vasectomies must comply with the specific informed consent standards set forth in the Rules of the Board of Medical Examiners, which are identical to those in HRS § 671-3(b). The specific standards include a requirement to disclose [t]he recognized serious possible risks, complications, and anticipated benefits[.] 85 Rules of the Board of Medical Examiners § 16-85-25. Further, Dr. Strode described recanalization [8] as a complication and a faintly possible risk. Because recanalization occurs in less than one percent of vasectomy patients, Dr. Strode believed that most urologists feel the incident of recanalization is so infrequent, so rare, that it's not necessary to specifically mention or select recanalization as a serious risk to a patient requesting a vasectomy. [9] However, Dr. Strode testified that a urologist is required, in the general setting of informed consent, to indicate to the patient that the procedure is not guaranteed to succeed. Dr. Strode explained that medicine is not an exact science and no procedure can be guaranteed, of any kind, vasectomy included. Although indicating a requirement to disclose that a procedure was not guaranteed, Dr. Strode also stated that the exact wording was a matter within the urologist's discretion. Based on Dr. Strode's testimony, we hold that plaintiffs met their burden of establishing the materiality of the risk of the vasectomy failing through the defendant-physician's expert medical testimony.