About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

LOG IN
LOG IN


Case Citations [1] (Spring 2025)

handle is hein.ali/thdtsmlmpe0003 and id is 1 raw text is: THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE Spring 2025 Citations TORTS 3D: MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DRAFTS) § 5. Standard of Reasonable Medical Care Tex.2024. Subsec. (a) cit. in ftn. to conc. op. (T.D. No. 2, 2024). Legal advocacy organization, on behalf of several Texas plaintiffs, sued Texas and state officials, challenging a state statute that imposed criminal liability against abortion providers on the ground that an exception to the statute, which permitted an abortion to save the life of a mother, was unclear. The trial court granted plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction. This court vacated, holding, among other things, that the exception was not narrower than the state constitution allowed. The concurring opinion clarified that determining whether an abortion was permitted under the statutory exception was determined under the objective standard of reasonable medical judgment, which echoed the standard of care applicable to all common-law negligence claims alleging medical malpractice, as described in Restatement Third of Torts: Medical Malpractice § 5(a). State v. Zurawski, 690 S.W.3d 644, 678. § 12. Informed Consent: Duty and Exceptions Md.App.2024. Com. (1) and Rptr's Notes quot. in sup. (T.D. No. 1, 2023). Patient filed a medical- malpractice action against, among others, emergency-room physician who examined her foot and recommended that she follow up with a vascular surgeon as an outpatient, alleging that physician's negligent failure to advise her of alternative treatment options and risks caused her to require a below- the-knee amputation of her leg. The trial court granted physician's motion forjudgment on patient's informed-consent claim. This court affirmed in part, holding that, even ifphysician's evaluation and recommendation constituted a treatment plan, there was no merit to patient's argument that physician was obligated to disclose alternative treatment options. The court cited Restatement Third of Torts: Medical Malpractice § 12 in noting that there was no clear legal standard regarding when and which alternatives had to be disclosed to patients and in how much detail, especially in patient focused jurisdictions like Maryland that focused on what data a patient required to make an intelligent decision, rather than what a physician thought a patient should know. Street v. Upper Chesapeake Medical Center, Inc., 311 A.3d 321, 342. COPYRIGHT 02025 By THE AMERICAN LAW INSTITUTE All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America For earlier citations, see the Appendices, Supplements, or Pocket Parts, if any, that correspond to the subject matter under examination.