Schiff v. Prados
California Court of Appeal
1Opinion of the Court
Opinion
KAY, J.
A doctor’s obligation to obtain a patient’s informed consent to medical treatment includes “a duty of reasonable disclosure of the available choices with respect to proposed therapy and of the dangers inherently and potentially involved in each.” (Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 243 [104 Cal.Rptr. 505, 502 P.2d 1].) We hold that, as a matter of law, a treatment that cannot legally be administered in this state is not “available” within the meaning of this rule, and thus that a physician cannot be held liable for failing to disclose the existence of such a treatment.
I.…
2Cases cited18 opinions
- Auto Equity Sales, Inc. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 1962
- Cobbs v. GrantCalifornia Supreme Court · 1972
- 24 Hour Fitness, Inc. v. Superior Court of Sonoma Cty.California Court of Appeal · 1998
- People v. PriviteraCalifornia Supreme Court · 1979
- Truman v. ThomasCalifornia Supreme Court · 1980
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by6 opinions
- Flores v. LiuCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2021
- Gilead Tenofovir CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024
- Gilead Tenofovir CasesCalifornia Court of Appeal · 2024
- M.A.K. v. Rush-Presbyterian St. Luke's Medical CenterIllinois Supreme Court · 2001
- M.A.K. v. Rush-Presbyterian-St. Luke's Medical CenterIllinois Supreme Court · 2001
1 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.