Natanson v. Kline’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

10 federal appellate · 4 district · 130 state decisions

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 153 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “Whether or not a physician has advised his patient of the inherent risks and hazards in a proposed form of treatment is a question of fact concerning which lay witnesses are competent to testify, and the establishment of such fact is not dependent upon expert medical testimony. It is only when the facts concerning the actual disclosures made to the patient are ascertained, or ascertainable by the trier of the facts, that the expert testimony of medical witnesses is required to establish whether such disclosures are in accordance with those which a reasonable medical practitioner would make under the same or similar circumstances.”

   8 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 2 Ariz. App. 358 - Shetter v. Rochelle · Tatro v. Lueken

2. “While the appellant did not directly testify that she would have refused to take the proposed cobalt irradiation treatments had she been properly informed, we think the evidence presented by the record taken as a whole is sufficient and would authorize a jury to infer that had she been properly informed, the appellant would not have taken the cobalt irradiation treatments.”

   3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 81 Wash. 2d 12 - ZeBarth v. Swedish Hospital Medical Center · Fain v. Smith

3. ““The conclusion to be drawn from the foregoing cases is that where the physician or surgeon has affirmatively misrepresented the nature of the operation or has failed to point out the probable consequences of the course of treatment, he may be subjected to a claim of unauthorized treatment. But this does not mean that a doctor is under an obligation to describe in detail all the possible consequences of treatment. . . .” (p. 406) “. . . Under the rule heretofore stated, where the patient fully appreciates the danger involved, the failure of a physician in his duty to make a reasonable disclosure to the patient would have no causal relation to the injury. In such event the consent of the patient to the proposed treatment is an informed consent. The burden of proof rests throughout the trial of the case upon the patient who seeks to recover in a malpractice action for her injury.”' (p. 410)”

   2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
   e.g. 200 N.J. Super. 620 - Skripek v. Bergamo · Younts Ex Rel. Johnson v. St. Francis Hospital & School of Nursing, Inc.