Funke v. Fieldman’s Empirical Analysis
1973
Citation profile
6 federal appellate · 7 district · 73 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 92 later decisions — most recently April 2021 · most notably Sard v. Hardy (1977), Bacon v. Mercy Hosp. of Ft. Scott (1988)
6 federal appellate · 7 district · 73 state decisions — followed in 14 states
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Relies on Canterbury v. Spence · Natanson v. Kline · 154 Cal. App. 2d 560 - Salgo v. Leland Stanford Jr. University Board of Trustees · Voss Ex Rel. Voss v. Bridwell · Collins v. Meeker
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 92 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
““For there to be liability of a physician for nondisclosure, the unrevealed risk must materialize, and there must be harm to the patient; there must be a causal relationship between the physician’s failure to adequately divulge information and damage to the patient.” Syl. ¶ 6. “A causal connection exists between the physician’s nondisclosure to the patient and the patient’s damage when, but only when, disclosure of significant risks incidental to treatment would have resulted in a decision against it.” Syl. ¶ 7. “Whether the patient would have refused the treatment or medical procedure had the physician made adequate disclosure is to be determined objectively. If adequate disclosure could reasonably be expected to have caused the patient to decline die treatment or medical procedure had the patient been informed of the kind of risk or danger which resulted in her harm, causation is shown but odienvise not, and the patient’s testimony is relevant on such issue, but should not be controlling.” Syl. ¶ 8.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority““In the absence of an emergency a physician or surgeon has a legal obligation to make a reasonable disclosure to bis patient of the nature and probable consequences of the suggested or recommended treatment, and to make a reasonable disclosure of the dangers within his knowledge which are incident or possible in the treatment he proposes to administer in order that his patient will have a basis to make an intelligent informed consent to the proposed treatment. But the duty of the physician is limited to tiróse disclosures which a reasonable medical practitioner would make under the same or similar circumstances.” (¶ 3.) “What is a reasonable disclosure upon which an informed consent may rest depends upon the facts and circumstances in each case.” (¶ 4.)”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[A breach of] the physician’s obligation to disclose the material risks incidental to a particular treatment ... does not per se establish liability to the patient. As in the ease of any breach of a legal duty, the plaintiff must ... prove a proximate causal relationship between the physician’s failure to adequately inform and injury to the patient. Proof of proximate cause in such cases requires, initially, a showing that the unrevealed risk which should have been made known has materialized. Absent occurrence of the undisclosed risk, the doctor’s omission is legally inconsequential.”
1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.