942 So. 2d 721 - Brown v. State’s Empirical Analysis

Citation profile

5 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 5 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

1. “It is undisputed that Plaintiff signed a written consent form and three attachments thereto. The consent form contains a statement to the effect that Plaintiff was informed of alternatives to the recommended treatment and, by signing, acknowledges receipt of said information. Plaintiff contends that she was never offered a trial of more conservative approaches, such as hormone therapy, to treating her problems and so stated in her affidavit attached to her motion for summary judgment. Dr. Barnard's deposition was also attached in support of the motion for summary judgment. Specifically, Plaintiff pointed to the following testimony in support of her assertion that no other treatment was offered to her: Q: All right. What about hormonal dysfunction and a trial of hormones, isn't that recommended by ACOG and, in fact, most other modern studies and texts? A: It can be recommended ... it would be recommended in some cases as an initial therapy, certainly. Q: And why was it not recommended here, and why would it have been in any way inappropriate here? A: It would not have been inappropriate there. Q: Well, shouldn't it at least have been offered to her as an alternative reasonable treatment? A: I think it should have been considered by her, that's correct. Q: Okay. But you didn't give her the opportunity to consider it? A: I mentioned it. I can't go beyond that. Dr. Bernard went on to say that he could not recall "with what force" he advised her try the hormone therapy. Defendant,”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 998 So. 2d 367 - Brown v. STATE EX REL. LSU MEDICAL CENTER

2. “A. (1) Notwithstanding any other law to the contrary, written consent to medical treatment means a handwritten consent to any medical or surgical procedure or course of procedures which: sets forth in general terms the nature and purpose of the procedure or procedures, together with the known risks, if any, of death, brain damage, quadriplegia, paraplegia, the loss or loss of function of any organ or limb, of disfiguring scars associated with such procedure or procedures; acknowledges that such disclosure of information has been made and that all questions asked about the procedure or procedures have been answered in a satisfactory manner; and is signed by the patient for whom the procedure is to be performed, or if the patient for any reason lacks legal capacity to consent by a person who has legal authority to consent on behalf of such patient in such circumstances. Such consent shall be presumed to be valid and effective, in the absence of proof that execution of the consent was induced by misrepresentation of material facts. . . . . C. Where consent to medical treatment from a patient, or from a person authorized by law to consent to medical treatment for such patient, is secured other than in accordance with Subsection A above, the explanation to the patient or to the person consenting for such patient shall include the matters set forth in Paragraph (1) of Subsection A above, and an opportunity shall be afforded for asking questions concerning the procedures to be perfo”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 998 So. 2d 367 - Brown v. STATE EX REL. LSU MEDICAL CENTER

3. “In 2002, Brown was thirty-two years old and had been experiencing several months of irregular menstrual cycles with profuse bleeding and significant pain. Apparently, she tried using Aleve, an anti-inflammatory, to treat her symptoms for several months to no avail. Plaintiff was seen by Dr. David Barnard at Huey P. Long Medical Center on January 31, 2002. A hysterectomy was recommended and ultimately performed on February 6, 2002 at Huey P. Long Medical Center by Dr. Margaret Carter with Dr. Carol Darwish and Dr. Yang assisting. Following the surgery, Plaintiff requested a medical review panel, alleging that she suffered serious complications including lacerations to her bladder, that the surgery was unnecessary, and that she was never offered more conservative medical approaches to her problem in violation of the informed consent statute. After the medical review panel found in favor of Defendant, Plaintiff filed the present suit.”

   1 later decision quote this exact passage
   e.g. 998 So. 2d 367 - Brown v. STATE EX REL. LSU MEDICAL CENTER