The Tennessee Supreme Court has granted a new trial for an East Tennessee man who claims that his doctor failed to provide him with adequate information before operating on his back.
In 2006, Ike J. White III, was suffering from back pain. He sought treatment from Dr. David A. Beeks, an orthopedic surgeon then practicing in Cleveland, who eventually recommended that Mr. White undergo spinal fusion surgery. Before the procedure, Dr. Beeks warned Mr. White of some of the risks involved, but did not explain that he would be using a bone-grafting product known as InFuse. He also failed to adequately explain the risks associated with that product, such as the possibility of abnormal bone growth. After surgery, Mr. White’s back pain subsided for a time, but eventually resurfaced. Tests later revealed abnormal bone growth on Mr. White’s spine.
Mr. White sued Dr. Beeks in Bradley County Circuit Court, alleging, among other claims, that Dr. Beeks failed to adequately explain the spinal fusion procedure in order for Mr. White to give his informed consent. Mr. White obtained a medical expert, who planned to testify at trial that Dr. Beeks should have explained that he would be using InFuse. The medical expert also would testify that Dr. Beeks should have disclosed to Mr. White all of the risks involved, even though some of those potential complications may not have occurred in Mr. White’s case.
The trial court ruled that Mr. White’s expert could not testify about any of the medical risks associated with InFuse that did not materialize into additional injuries. The jury decided in favor of Dr. Beeks. On appeal, Mr. White argued that the limitation placed upon his expert was improper and unfairly affected the outcome of his case. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s decision, and Mr. White appealed to the Tennessee Supreme Court.
In an opinion authored by Chief Justice Sharon Lee, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals. The Court noted that a doctor has a duty to inform a patient of all significant risks associated with a procedure and that information regarding those risks, regardless of whether the risks became actual complications, would be highly relevant to the question of whether a reasonable person in a patient’s situation would have chosen to undergo the procedure.
Because the trial court precluded Mr. White’s expert from testifying about a number of risks associated with InFuse, the jury did not have the opportunity to hear relevant, admissible evidence supporting Mr. White’s informed consent claim. The Supreme Court held that this limitation on Mr. White’s expert, more probably than not, affected the outcome of the case and ordered a new trial for Mr. White on the issue of informed consent. The case will now return to the trial court.
Read the opinion in Ike J. White, III v. David A. Beeks, M.D., authored by Chief Justice Lee.