Getchell v. Mansfield’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

2 federal appellate · 1 district · 45 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 50 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “We hold, therefore, that a plaintiff who alleges that a physician failed to warn him of material risks inherent in his treatment, and to advise him of feasible alternatives, need not produce expert medical testimony that it is the custom of physicians in the same or similar localities to give such warnings in comparable cases. The duty to warn and to advise of alternatives does not arise from and is not limited by the custom of physicians in the locality. Rather, it exists as a matter of law if (1) the risk of injury inherent in the treatment is material; (2) there are feasible alternative courses available; and (3) the plaintiff can be advised of the risks and alternatives without detriment to his well-being. If there is evidence tending to prove all these elements, the plaintiff is entitled to have his case submitted to the jury under proper instructions. In most cases, expert medical testimony will be necessary to establish each of the three elements. Harper and James write forcefully that there should be no need in most cases for expert medical testimony to establish that disclosure of certain risks and alternatives is the customary medical practice: “Since the courts quite rightly recognize room for a doctor’s therapeutic discretion in exercising his duty of disclosure, expert evidence of what is proper medical practice in that respect is relevant and is everywhere received. This is as it should be. But courts have generally gone much further and have required medical ev”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 11 Wash. App. 272 - Miller v. Kennedy

2. “The court reasoned that the informed consent doctrine is based on the proposition that every competent person is the final arbiter of whether or not he gets cut, by whom he gets cut, and where he gets cut. A patient has the sovereign choice of whether he will submit to surgery in the course of the diagnosis and treatment, and in order to make this choice meaningful and realistic the doctor is under a legal duty to disclose to a patient any serious risks involved in the contemplated surgery, and the alternatives available to him, including the risks from declining surgery. The doctrine of informed consent does not depend on expert medical testimony and the patient is not required to produce medical evidence that there is a local standardized professional practice to make the disclosure in question, such as danger of voice loss from a thyroidectomy. In other words, the court stated that the basis of liability, based upon lack of informed consent, makes it unnecessary for the patient to produce expert testimony of the doctor's negligence in the surgery or other treatment. The duty to disclose serious risks should not be based upon the doctor's practices but upon the patient's need for full disclosure of serious risks and the feasibility of alternatives in order for the patient to make an intelligent and informed choice.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 18 Wash. App. 369 - Archer v. Galbraith

3. ““When there is medical testimony which establishes that a risk is material, that alternatives are feasible, and that disclosure of the risk will not be detrimental to the particular patient, we find no reason why expert medical testimony should be required to establish the existence of a duty to disclose such risks. This is not a medical matter. Once materiality, feasibility and the effect of a disclosure on the patient is established by expert testimony, what physicians disclose or do not disclose in a particular locality about the risks and feasible alternatives of certain proposed treatment or surgery, if there is any standard practice, must be a happenstance because medical training and experience would be of little assistance on this aspect of the problem.” Getchell v. Mansfield, 260 Or. 174 , 489 P.2d 953, 956 (1971).”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. Winkjer v. Herr