The Case Of Lugenbuhl V. Dowling

1161 Words5 Pages
Elements In the case of Lugenbuhl v. Dowling, the plaintiff was a patient of the defendant Dr. John Dowling. The case took place in the Court of Appeal, Fourth Circuit in New Orleans, Louisiana. The plaintiff claimed that the defendant had no informed consent and claimed medical malpractice after an initial hernia repair surgery, gallbladder surgeries, and after another doctor, Dr. C. Edward Foti had to repair the herniated area of the abdomen a year after the surgery by the defendant. The plaintiff claimed that the latest hernia surgery was the result of Dr. Dowling not using mesh, as the plaintiff insisted, and instead sutured the herniated area. The court and expert testimony of Dr. Foti found that the lack of mesh was not the reason for the last hernia surgery. The standard and quality of care in this case did not falter and the case resulted in a small reward of damages to the plaintiff (Biotech, 1997).
Meaning and Importance of the Doctrine of Informed Consent Informed consent is "the process of communication between a patient and physician that results in the patient 's authorization or agreement to undergo a specific medical intervention" (Practical Guide, n.d.). This doctrine is important to protect the patient and the physician from undue harm including false legal action against the physician. Informed consent is signed by the patient stating that the physician informed them of the risks and hazards that would lead a reasonable person to make an
Get Access