Werth v. Taylor - 190 Mich. App. 141, 475 N.W.2d 426 (1991)

Rule:

A competent adult patient has the right to decline any and all forms of medical intervention, including lifesaving or life-prolonging treatment. However, the law implies the consent of an unconscious patient to medical procedures needed to preserve the patient's life. If a physician treats or operates on a patient without consent, he has committed an assault and battery and may be required to respond in damages. Consent may be expressed or implied. Consent is implied where an emergency procedure is required and there is no opportunity to obtain actual consent or where the patient seeks treatment or otherwise manifests a willingness to submit to a particular treatment.

Facts:

Appellants, Cindy K. Werth and Donald E. Werth, were Jehovah's Witnesses. After Cindy became pregnant with twins, she signed a hospital's forms that indicated her refusal to permit blood transfusion. After the birth of the Werths’ twins, Cindy went into surgery. While Cindy was unconscious, Michael V. Taylor, M.D. determined that a blood transfusion was medically necessary to save her life. A blood transfusion was given to Cindy. The Werths then brought a medical malpractice action in the circuit court against Taylor. The Werths alleged that Taylor had committed a battery. The circuit court granted appellee's motion for summary judgment pursuant to Mich. Ct. R. 2.116(C)(10).

Issue:

Did Taylor commit a battery when he decided to give a blood transfusion to Cindy, while the latter was unconscious, in order to save her life?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment. The court held that the circuit court's summary disposition of appellants' battery claim against Taylor was proper, as Cindy did not contemporaneously refuse treatment in a fully informed, competent manner.