Court Opinion

ID: 9859977
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 23:06:11.749038+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:14:25.458681
License: Public Domain

SANDSTROM, Justice,
concurring specially.
[¶ 47] The patient or parents must be clearly informed of factual information about the medical procedure and its short-term and long-term consequences that might reasonably result in a patient’s or parent’s electing not to have the procedure performed. Koapke v. Herfendal, 2003 ND 64, ¶¶ 14, 15, 660 N.W.2d 206; Jaskoviak v. Gruver, 2002 ND 1, ¶¶ 18, 14, 638 N.W.2d 1; Bartal v. Brower, 268 Kan. 195, 993 P.2d 629, 634 (1999); N.D.C.C. § 23-12-13(l)(e). I understand the majority to agree with this proposition, and I concur in it.
[¶ 48] Although the trial court is afforded wide discretion in deciding whether to admit or exclude evidence, Brandt v. Milbrath, 2002 ND 117, ¶13, 647 N.W.2d 674, I remain concerned that the cumulative effect of the trial court’s decision limiting the plaintiffs’ evidence may have denied them a fair trial, see Kingdon v. Bybrant, 158 N.W.2d 863, 869 (N.D. 1968), but I cannot say that my concern rises to a conviction that a new trial need be ordered.
[¶ 49] DALE V. SANDSTROM, J.