Legal Opinion

Southard v. Temple University Hospital

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided September 26, 2001No. 22 EAP 2000PublishedCited by 21 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION

Justice CAPPY

We granted allocatur limited to the issue of whether the doctrine of informed consent requires surgeons to advise their patients of the Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) regulatory status of a medical device. We conclude that there is no such requirement, and therefore we reverse that portion of the Superior Court’s order that held otherwise.

Appellee Branes Southard injured his back at work in 1987 and again in 1989. In October 1992, in an attempt to alleviate Appellee’s back pain, Appellants Dr. Clements and Dr. Young at Temple University Hospital implanted a spinal…

2Cases cited23 opinions

  1. Medtronic, Inc. v. LohrSupreme Court of the United States · 1996
  2. Buckman Co. v. Plaintiffs' Legal CommitteeSupreme Court of the United States · 2001
  3. Shadrick v. CokerTennessee Supreme Court · 1998
  4. Phillips v. A-Best Products Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1995
  5. Moure v. RaeuchleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

18 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by21 opinions

  1. State v. LoftinSupreme Court of New Jersey · 2007
  2. Davenport v. Medtronic, Inc.District Court, E.D. Pennsylvania · 2004
  3. Richard A. Balderston, M.D. v. Medtronic Sofamor Danek, Inc. Acromed CorporationCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2002
  4. Bey v. SacksSuperior Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. Blazoski v. CookNew Jersey Superior Court Appellate Division · 2002

16 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API