Norma Jo SCOTT and Dale M. Scott, Appellants, v. Vance A. BRADFORD, Appellee, 1979 OK 165

Summary

Plaintiffs brought a medical malpractice action based on lack of informed consent against defendant after plaintiff wife developed an incontinence problem requiring further surgery following surgery that defendant performed to remove uterine tumors plaintiff wife had developed. Plaintiff wife alleged that she was not informed of the risks of surgery and that had she known she would have refused the surgery. The jury entered a verdict in favor of defendant and plaintiffs appealed. The court affirmed on the grounds that the jury was sufficiently instructed on the law applicable to the issues. The court held that until this time the state had not adopted the theory of informed consent and, therefore, it was not error that the jury was not instructed on this theory as argued by plaintiffs. However, for all cases arising after this opinion, the court adopted and imposed the doctrine of informed consent.