This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The Plaintiff, acting as the personal representative of the deceased's estate, alleged that the Defendant hospital failed to obtain the deceased's informed consent before administering a blood transfusion following surgery. The transfusion, ordered by a non-employee physician, was performed by hospital nurses. The deceased later developed transfusion-induced hepatitis, which contributed to her death (paras 2-3).
Procedural History
- District Court, date unspecified: Dismissed the Plaintiff's claim against the hospital for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted (paras 1, 4).
Parties' Submissions
- Plaintiff-Appellant: Argued that the hospital was negligent in failing to obtain informed consent or ensuring that the physician had done so. The Plaintiff also contended that the hospital's duty should reflect evolving informed consent standards and that the hospital's policies should ensure informed consent is obtained before procedures (paras 5, 11).
- Defendant-Appellee (St. Joseph Hospital): Asserted that it had no duty to obtain informed consent for a procedure ordered by a non-employee physician and performed by hospital staff, relying on precedent and the principle that such a duty would interfere with the physician-patient relationship (paras 8-9).
Legal Issues
- Did the hospital have a duty to obtain the deceased's informed consent for the blood transfusion?
- Was the hospital obligated to ensure that the non-employee physician had obtained informed consent?
- Should the precedent in Cooper v. Curry be limited or overruled to reflect changes in informed consent law?
Disposition
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim against the hospital with prejudice (para 16).
Reasons
Per Minzner J. (Apodaca and Pickard JJ. concurring):
The Court held that the hospital had no duty to obtain informed consent for a procedure ordered by a non-employee physician and performed by hospital staff. This conclusion was based on the precedent set in Cooper v. Curry, which emphasized that imposing such a duty would unnecessarily interfere with the physician-patient relationship (paras 8-9).
The Court rejected the Plaintiff's argument that the nurses' involvement in performing the transfusion distinguished this case from Cooper. It reasoned that hospital staff, while trained to perform procedures, lack the requisite knowledge of a patient's medical history and diagnosis to provide a complete and informed explanation of risks and benefits (paras 9-10).
The Court also declined to overrule Cooper, finding that it remains consistent with the majority rule in other jurisdictions, which generally do not impose a duty on hospitals to obtain or ensure informed consent in similar circumstances (paras 12-14).
Finally, the Court noted that the Plaintiff's amended complaint did not allege facts supporting liability under a corporate negligence theory, and most jurisdictions do not impose such a duty on hospitals in cases like this (para 15).
The Court concluded that Cooper controlled the outcome and affirmed the dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim (para 16).