Summary Of Cobbs V. Cal 3d

793 Words4 Pages

Case Citation:
Cobbs v Grant, 8 Cal 3d 229 (1972)

Procedural History:
The case for the judgement on the malpractice suit against Grant was held in a trial court. For the returned verdict against the defendant, the appeal was held in the Court of Appeal.

Legal Issue:
The case was brought before the jury to decide and analyze two legal issues. It brought a malpractice action was against Grant’s negligence of performing the operation on the duodenal ulcer. The second issue is whether the physician is under duty to inform and receive consent from the patient about the disclosed risks of a treatment plan before proceeding with it.

Facts of the Case:
Ralph Cobbs was diagnosed with a stomach duodenal ulcer and it was concluded that a surgical …show more content…

Weber (1962) it was quoted "The fact that a particular injury suffered by a patient as the result of an operation is something that rarely occurs does not in itself prove that the injury was probably caused by the negligence of those in charge of the operation." There was a chance that the inherent risks would happen to Cobbs, but it was not at the purpose of Grant’s negligence. Under Berkey v Anderson (1969), the defendant (physician), similar to this case, failed to inform and obtain consent from the patient about inherent risks of an operation and knew there would be complications. The defendant was found guilty of “technical” battery. The court was divided on the issue of whether this case would deem Grant’s action as negligence or battery. The defendant had performed the operation as consented with the plaintiff, only the small chances of the complications had occurred with the spleen injury, the new development of the gastric ulcer which then led to a gastrectomy. The complications were linked to the initial operation. There were in three total experts that testified in the case: the defendant, Dr. Sands, and Dr. Yates, the defendant’s expert. The expert’s conclusions showed that there was no negligence in the due care for the plaintiff. Cobbs was unable to provide any expert but argued to the court that the defendant’s expert facts are incomprehensible to the jury and only indicate the need for the surgery. Cobbs also argued the defendant’s