P went to doctor D about a problem with her right ear. P consented to surgery on her right ear.
During surgery, D determined that the right ear did not need to be operated on. D checked her left ear and determined that there was a non-threatening condition that needed an operation.
D successfully performed surgery on the left ear.
P sued D for battery.
Procedural History:
Trial court found for P, but judge threw out since damages were excessive.
Supreme Court of MN remanded for a new trial on damages.
Issues:
If a doctor has obtained a patient's consent for a particular operation, may the doctor perform a different operation without the patient's consent?
Holding/Rule:
A doctor who has obtained a patient's consent for a particular operation may not perform a different operation without the patient's consent.
Reasoning:
Doctor's don't have free license to perform any surgery they wish.
However, if it is an emergency and the surgery is required to save life or limb, the doctor can perform surgery without consent.
There was no such emergency in this case. The finding of the problem in the left ear was completely independent of the operation on the right ear.
An act committed without the consent of the P amounts to battery regardless of the skill with which it was performed.
However, this will play into how much the P can recover in damages. (nature of operation and good faith of D)
