Scott v. Bradford
In today's world, Scott v. Bradford has become a topic of great relevance and interest to a wide range of people. Its impact and influence cover different areas, affecting both society as a whole and more specific aspects of daily life. Since its emergence, Scott v. Bradford has sparked a series of debates and reflections around its meaning, its implications and its possible consequences. In this article, we will explore in depth the role that Scott v. Bradford plays in the contemporary world, analyzing its relevance in different contexts and its influence on different aspects of modern life.
 |
| Scott v. Bradford | |
|---|---|
| Court | Oklahoma Supreme Court |
| Full case name | Norma Jo Scott and Dale M. Scott, Appellants, v. Vance A. Bradford, Appellee. |
| Decided | November 28, 1979 |
| Citation(s) | 606 P.2d 554 |
| Court membership | |
| Judges sitting | Robert E. Lavender, Pat Irwin, Ralph B. Hodges, Don Barnes, Robert D. Simms, Marian P. Opala, John B. Doolin, Rudolph Hargrave, Norman E. Reynolds |
| Case opinions | |
| Decision by | Doolin |
| Concurrence | Lavender, Hodges, Hargrave, Opala |
| Concur/dissent | Barnes, Irwin, Simms, Reynolds |
| Keywords | |
Scott v. Bradford, 606 P.2d 554 (1979) is a Supreme Court of Oklahoma case.
Facts
Mrs. Scott, the plaintiff, sought treatment from Dr. Bradford. She was diagnosed with several uterine fibroids. She signed a routine consent to surgery form prior to the hysterectomy. Afterward she was experiencing problems with incontinence, and she visited another doctor. She was found to have a fistula between her bladder and vagina which allowed urine to leak from her bladder into her vagina. She underwent three additional surgeries to correct her problem. She claimed the fistula was caused by the doctor's negligence during surgery. The doctor responded that this was a known complication of the surgery. Mrs. Scott said she was never informed of this risk.
Reasoning
The duty to disclose is the first element. Then proof that patient would have chosen no treatment or a different course of treatment had the alternatives and risks been made known, thus establishing a causation. If the patient would have elected to proceed the element of causation is missing, and so too negligence. A causal connection between the patient’s injury and the doctor’s breach of a duty to disclose exists only when the disclosure of material risks would have resulted in a decision against it. The final element is that of an injury. The risk must have actually materialized, AND pl must have been injured as a result of submitting to the treatment.
Exceptions
There is no need to disclose risks that either ought to be known by everyone or are already known to the patient; or if the disclosure would alarm an emotionally upset patient; or where there is an emergency and the patient is in no condition to determine for himself whether the treatment should be administered.
See also
Notes
- ^ Special Justice
External links
- Text of Scott v. Bradford, 606 P.2d 554 (Okla. 1979) is available from: CourtListener Google Scholar Justia Leagle Oklahoma State Courts Network
 | This Government of Oklahoma-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. |