White v. Leimbach’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

47 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 48 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “'a risk is material when a reasonable person, in what the physician knows or should know to be the patient's condition, would be likely to attach significance to the risk or cluster of risks in deciding whether or not to forego the proposed treatment.' " Id. at ¶ 32, quoting Nickell at 139 . In the context of a claim for lack of informed consent, expert medical testimony is required to establish the material risks and dangers inherently and potentially involved with a medical procedure, but what a reasonable patient would have done in light of these disclosed risks is determined by the trier of fact. White at ¶ 37 . Expert medical testimony is also required to establish that an undisclosed risk or danger actually materialized and proximately caused injury to the patient. Id. at ¶ 38. {¶ 108} Thus, pursuant to Nickell, appellant needed to present evidence showing: (1) that Dr. Jacob failed to disclose and discuss with Mrs. Stanley the material risks and dangers inherently and potentially involved with respect to surgically removing the acoustic neuroma, (2) that the unrevealed risks and dangers "which should have been No. 12AP-999 31 disclosed”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. Stanley v. Ohio State Univ. Med. Ctr.

2. “a reasonable person in the position of the patient would have decided against the therapy had the material risks and dangers inherent and incidental to treatment been disclosed.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 389 F. Supp. 3d 535 - Ncmic Ins. Co. v. Smith

3. “the unrevealed risks and dangers which should have been disclosed by the physician actually materialize and are the proximate cause of the injury to the patient,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the concurrence
   e.g. 389 F. Supp. 3d 535 - Ncmic Ins. Co. v. Smith