Opinion ID: 1250976
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: evidence during trial

Text: Eccleston testified that in a visit before the surgery, Chait told Eccleston that there was a 95 percent or 90 percent success rate and a 5 percent failure rate in stapedectomies, but did not tell Eccleston that loss of hearing was a risk and possible result of the operation. In his case in chief, Eccleston introduced Chait's deposition, in which the physician acknowledged that he routinely informed a stapedectomy patient that the operation on occasion is not successful and that the hearing may be lost, although Chait did not recall giving Eccleston the foregoing information before the stapedectomy. Eccleston also called Chait as a witness regarding the standard of care in Omaha for physicians' informing patients about the risks of a stapedectomy. During direct examination of Chait, the following exchange occurred: Q. Back in September of 1985, wasn't it the standard in Omaha for physicians to advise the patients that they could lose their total hearing in the ear that you were doing a stapedectomy on? A. Yeah. I think that the standard in '85 was that the physician should advise the patient that the operation was not without risk and that there could be failures. Q. All right. And these failures would include the loss of hearing to the ear of the surgical ear? A. Those failures would include that, yes. .... Q. And by `failure,' you mean the loss of hearing of the ear? A. By `failure' that's what I am referring to, yes. Chait further testified that even in a surgically correct stapedectomy, a loss of hearing may occur because the auditory nerve cannot tolerate the energy of the operation and it essentially dies. Dr. James Werth, an ear, nose, and throat specialist practicing in the Omaha area, testified for Chait concerning the standard of care and information imparted to a prospective surgical patient for a stapedectomy in 1985. According to Werth, all necessary information was communicated by conversation with a prospective patient so that an intelligent decision could be made as to whether or not the individual wanted to have this procedure done. Regarding a stapedectomy, Werth testified that the standard of care required that the physician explain to the patient that there is a failure rate of 5 percent, and he testified that a physician's telling a patient that there is a five percent risk of failure in stapedectomies is consistent with the standard of care concerning an informed consent for a stapedectomy. Finally, Werth expressed his opinion that Chait did meet the standard of care in the stapedectomy surgery and that Chait obtained informed consent for the surgical procedure performed on Eccleston. At conclusion of all the evidence, Chait moved for a directed verdict on the basis that there was no evidence that the standard of care in Omaha required that a physician, before a stapedectomy, inform the patient concerning the possibility of loss of hearing as a result of the stapedectomy. The court refused to direct a verdict for Chait and submitted the case to the jury, which returned its verdict for Chait.