Normal Consent Rules Do Not Apply to Life-Threatening Situations
In the recent decision of Liguori v. Hunter and others, decided July 24, 2006 (Docket #: A-1819-04T5), the Appellate Division ruled that, in the case of a life-threatening emergency, the normal need to obtain a patient’s “informed consent” does not apply. Here, the 71 year old patient underwent successful quadruple bypass surgery. Following the surgery, Mrs. Liguori developed a collapsed lung. Since the surgeon was already in the middle of another bypass operation, he sent in a fellow [physician in training] to insert a chest tube to reinflate the lung. Unfortunately, without obtaining anyone’s consent, the fellow, Dr. Hunter, inserted the tube into the woman’s left ventricle, causing a cascade of events resulting in the her death. The Court rejected plaintiff’s claim that their informed consent count should not have been dismissed during the trial, as the collapsed lung was a genuine emergency, and because Dr. Hunter did not have time to speak to the family, the normal need to obtain the consent of the patient or family, and advise of the risks of the benefits of the procedure, and/or allow the patient/family to choose another doctor to perform the procedure, did not apply.
- De Laroche v. Advanced Laparoscopic Association et al. (A-5403-1474) Decided 2/28/2017
- Clarification on the Statute of Limitations for “Survival” Claims – Warren v. Muenzen, 448 N.J. Super. 52, (Super. Ct. App. Div. 2016) December 7, 2016)
- Settling Defendant Charge Need Not Always Be Given – Hernandez v. Chekenian, No. L-11038 14, 2016 WL 6024008, (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. July 15, 2016)
- Vascular Surgeon Not Qualified to Testify Against Family Practitioner Who Performed a Vascular Procedure – Afonso v. Bejjani – A-1623-15T4
- Federally Qualified Health Center Entitled to New Jersey’s Cap on Charitable Immunity for Hospitals – S.M. v. United States of America – CA No. 13-5702, USDC – DNJ