Use this button to switch between dark and light mode.

Share your feedback on this Case Brief

Thank You For Submiting Feedback!

  • Law School Case Brief

Karl J. Pizzalotto, M.D., Ltd. v. Wilson - 437 So. 2d 859 (La. 1983)

Rule:

The doctrine of consent to medical treatment is rooted in the idea that a person has the right to make major decisions regarding his own body. Every human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body and a surgeon who performs an operation without his patient's consent commits an assault for which he is liable in damages.

Facts:

Plaintiff signed a written instrument signifying her consent to a laparotomy, an exploratory operation. During the course of the operation, the surgeon found extensive endometrial adhesions much worse than he had anticipated. The surgeon proceeded to perform a total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo--oophorectomy, which accomplished a total removal of all of the reproductive organs. Plaintiff filed suit against the surgeon. The lower courts held that the surgeon was not liable to the plaintiff. Plaintiff appealed.

Issue:

Was the surgeon liable to the plaintiff for his act of removing plaintiff’s reproductive organs without plaintiff’s consent? 

Answer:

Yes.

Conclusion:

The court reversed and held for plaintiff, and remanded to the appeals court to determine the damages owed plaintiff. The court noted that the evidence presented no reasonable basis for finding that plaintiff had consented either expressly or impliedly to a removal of her reproductive organs. Regardless of the reasonableness of the surgery or its eventual necessity, the surgeon did not have authority to act beyond his patient's authorization, except when a situation seriously threatened the health or life of the patient. The court found nothing in the record to warrant a determination that the surgeon was forced by such a situation to remove plaintiff's female organs before obtaining her consent; thus, the surgeon committed a battery that entitled plaintiff to recover damages for negligence or malpractice. The court noted that plaintiff consented in writing only to a laparotomy, an exploratory operation to burn the adhesions that had entangled these organs.

Access the full text case

Essential Class Preparation Skills

  • How to Answer Your Professor's Questions
  • How to Brief a Case
  • Don't Miss Important Points of Law with BARBRI Outlines (Login Required)

Essential Class Resources

  • CivPro
  • Contracts
  • Constitutional Law
  • Corporations /Business Organizations
  • Criminal Law
  • Criminal Procedure/Investigation
  • Evidence
  • Legal Ethics/Professional Responsibility
  • Property
  • Secured Transactions
  • Torts
  • Trusts & Estates