Legal Opinion

Montgomery v. Bazaz-Sehgal

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania

Decided June 18, 2002No. 38 WAP 2000PublishedCited by 46 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

OPINION OF THE COURT

Justice CASTILLE.

In this appeal, this Court reaffirms that the doctrine of informed consent, whether involving non-consensual surgery or a lack of informed consent, sounds in battery, not in negligence, despite observations to the contrary in the published Superior Court opinion below. The appeal also presents the question of whether, and when, expert medical testimony is necessary to prove damages resulting from a medical battery. On this question, we are in agreement with the careful distinction drawn by the Superior Court and, hence, we affirm its mandate.

In August of…

2Cases cited21 opinions

  1. Gray v. GrunnagleSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1966
  2. Fink v. Sheldon Axle & Spring Co.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1921
  3. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of ReviewSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1997
  4. Navickas v. Unemployment Compensation Review BoardSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2001
  5. Gouse v. CasselSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 1992

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

3Cited by46 opinions

  1. Commonwealth v. HessSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2002
  2. Ditto v. McCurdyCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2007
  3. Hospital & Healthsystem Ass'n v. Department of Public WelfareSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2005
  4. Brady, M. v. Urbas D.P.M., W., Aplt.Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2015
  5. Fitzpatrick v. NatterSupreme Court of Pennsylvania · 2008

41 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