What is medical battery?

Useful Rulings on Battery – Medical (Civil)

Recent Rulings on Battery – Medical (Civil)

LINDA MENDOZA RAZO VS JIMMY HANG, DPT

This action arises out of Plaintiff’s claim that while she was being treated at Defendant The Regents of the University of California’s (Regents) healthcare facility at UCLA on 7/17/17, she was sexually assaulted and battered by Defendant Jimmy Hang, a doctor of physical therapy employed by the University/Regents. (FAC ¶9).

  • Hearing

    Jul 10, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

HUYNH, ET AL. V. MISSION DE LA CASA NURSING AND REHABILITATION CTR., ET AL.

A claim based on lack of informed consent—which sounds in negligence—arises when the doctor performs a procedure without first adequately disclosing the risks and alternatives. In contrast, a battery is an intentional tort that occurs when a doctor performs a procedure without obtaining any consent. (Id. at p. 324; see also Rains v. Super. Ct.

  • Hearing

    Jul 09, 2020

RIKA WAKAHARA VS STEVEN C DRESNER ET AL

Issue 1: Second Cause of Action for Medical Battery A medical battery occurs when “a doctor obtains consent of the patient to perform one type of treatment and subsequently performs a substantially different treatment for which consent was not obtained.” Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 239. A medical battery also occurs “when a doctor performs an operation to which the patient has not consented.” Id. at 240.

  • Hearing

    Jul 08, 2020

WILLIAMS V. IBERDEMAJ

Plaintiff survived summary judgment because there is a question, which defendant’s expert did not sufficiently address, as to whether defendant’s deviation from the expected site of the biopsy from the calf to the thigh vitiated plaintiff’s written consent, and whether this constituted a medical battery and/or medical malpractice.

  • Hearing

    Jul 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JANE DOE, ET AL. VS EMPLOYERS HR, LLC, ET AL.

In April 2019, Plaintiff Doe made a complaint about the sexual harassment, battery, and rape to defendant Yvonne Canseco, another one of Plaintiff’s supervisors. Defendant Canseco stated that nothing could be done. (FAC ¶ 14(i).) In June 2019, Plaintiff Doe made another complaint of sexual harassment, sexual battery, and rape against Hilario to defendant Silva. (FAC ¶ 14(j).)

  • Hearing

    Jul 02, 2020

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Wrongful Term

  • Judge Elaine Lu
  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

STEPHANIE SCOTT VS FRANTZ PIERRE, ET AL.

The complaint alleges battery and negligence for an altercation that occurred on March 3, 2018. On October 30, 2019, Defendant/Cross-Complainant Frantz Pierre dba Eco Friendly Cleaning Workers Cooperate filed a cross-complaint against Defendant/Cross-Defendant DTLA Management, LLC seeking indemnity, contribution, apportionment, and declaratory relief.

  • Hearing

    Jun 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

BOND VS. SIMON

Where the doctor performs the treatment to which consent was given but fails to make a proper disclosure, the tort is negligence; if the doctor performs a different one, the tort is battery. (Rainer v. Community Memorial Hosp. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 240, 255; see Kaplan v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

BOND VS. SIMON

Where the doctor performs the treatment to which consent was given but fails to make a proper disclosure, the tort is negligence; if the doctor performs a different one, the tort is battery. (Rainer v. Community Memorial Hosp. (1971) 18 Cal.App.3d 240, 255; see Kaplan v.

  • Hearing

    Jun 23, 2020

BERNARDINO GARCIA ET AL. VS ROSALIA CORONADO ET AL.

Thus, the Tarasoff court found, “ ' that by entering into a doctor-patient relationship, the therapist becomes sufficiently involved to assume some responsibility for the safety, not only of the patient himself, but also of any third person whom the doctor knows to be threatened by the patient.' ” Tarasoff, supra, 17 Cal.3d at p. 437.

  • Hearing

    Jun 16, 2020

KATHLEEN F. CARPENTER, ET AL. V. MICHAEL J. GUNSON, MD, DDS, ET AL.

In Conte, the doctor, during surgery, decided not to perform a surgical repair to the plaintiff’s shoulder because the shoulder might have disintegrated. The court concluded that no battery had occurred because the doctor did less than he was authorized to do. Id., at 1269. Here, unlike in Conte, rather than terminating plaintiff’s jaw surgery after determining that her bone density was very poor, defendants, by their own admission, proceeded with an entirely different procedure. (FAC, ¶23.)

  • Hearing

    Jun 09, 2020

HOSIE BENNETT VS HUNTINGTON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL

The Supreme Court discussed whether this situation was one of medical battery or negligence (medical malpractice). The Supreme Court stated that where a doctor obtains a patient’s consent to perform one type of treatment but subsequently performs another, this is a clear case of battery.

  • Hearing

    Mar 13, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ALLISON STEIN VS DAVID GHOZLAND ET AL

Summary Adjudication – Battery Medical battery occurs when a patient has consented to a particular treatment, but the doctor performs a treatment that goes beyond the consent. Conte v. Girard Orthopaedic Surgeons Medical Group, Inc. (2003) 107 Cal.App.4th 1260, 1268. Dr. Sikking states she saw no evidence of “mutilation” when reviewing plaintiff’s medical records and opines the labiaplasty was within the scope of plaintiff’s consent. Defendants’ Separate Statement 21, 22, 24.

  • Hearing

    Mar 11, 2020

ZENDEJAS VS. STERN

Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, the California Supreme Court stated, “The battery theory should be reserved for those circumstances when a doctor performs an operation to which the patient has not consented.” (Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 240.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 06, 2020

NICOLE LOUISE SCRANTON ET AL VS MOUHANAD ALWAN MD ET AL

Plaintiffs likewise indicate that, for the reasons set forth above, they do not oppose the motion on the second cause of action for medical battery. (Nov. 27, 2019 O’Connell Decl., ¶3.)

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

MARGARET WILLIAMS ET AL VS LONG BEACH UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRIC

Although Williams’s opposition does not use the word “assault” the Court finds that the opposition adequately addresses all of LBUSD’s arguments, which arguments apply to both the battery and assault causes of action. Accordingly, the motion for summary judgment of Williams’s battery and assault causes of action is DENIED.

  • Hearing

    Mar 05, 2020

JOSEFINA ROBLES VS ST FRANCIS MEDICAL CENTER ET AL

Plaintiff’s epidural and C-section consent forms, which include the following language: “The operations or procedures will be performed by the doctor(s) named above . . . together with associates and assistants including anesthesiologists, pathologists, and radiologists from the medical staff of St. Francis Medical Center to whom the doctor(s) performing the procedure may assign designated responsibilities.

  • Hearing

    Feb 27, 2020

  • Judge

    Salvatore Sirna or Gary Y. Tanaka

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ANDREA W. VS SOHAN DUA

Due was a doctor treating dialysis patients at the facility. Andrea became uncomfortable with Dua after he began persistently contacting her in 2015. In June 2016, both Andrea and Dua attended a conference in Dallas, Texas. After the conference, Andrea realized that she had missed a bus ride to Corpus Cristi. Dua offered to contact an airline for her and requested to speak with her in his room. Andrea went to his hotel room.

  • Hearing

    Feb 24, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

This is because if the intent element is not explicitly stated in the instruction, it would be possible for a jury (incorrectly) to find a doctor liable for medical battery even if it believed the doctor negligently forgot about the condition precedent.” Dennis, supra, at 544.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

YIMING CHEN, ET AL. VS HOURONG ZHANG, ET AL.

Between 2017 and present, Defendant Hourong Zhang allegedly held herself out on several advertising platforms as a “doctor” who was capable of treating many different types of medical problems. It is alleged that the advertisements were to promote Shanqing Medical Center.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

  • Type

    Business

  • Sub Type

    Intellectual Property

CARRIEN QIAN HE, AN INDIVIDUAL VS JAY MIN CHEN, AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL.

Between 2017 and present, Defendant Hourong Zhang allegedly held herself out on several advertising platforms as a “doctor” who was capable of treating many different types of medical problems. It is alleged that the advertisements were to promote Shanqing Medical Center.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Fraud

JANE DOE M.M., AN INDIVIDUAL, ET AL. VS PASADENA HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, LTD.,, ET AL.

In most instances, a claim for sexual battery would not be related to the manner in which professional services are rendered as most services by health care providers do not involve the genitalia. (Cooper v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 744, 750.) However, “[a] doctor rendering gynecological care, by contrast, cannot render the full panoply of gynecological services without touching, probing or otherwise manipulating a woman's genitalia.

  • Hearing

    Feb 21, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ELINR MASSACHI VS DONALD JAMES WALDREP, ET AL.

“Our high court has made it clear that battery and lack of informed consent are separate causes of action. A claim based on lack of informed consent—which sounds in negligence—arises when the doctor performs a procedure without first adequately disclosing the risks and alternatives. In contrast, a battery is an intentional tort that occurs when a doctor performs a procedure without obtaining any consent. (See, e.g., Conte v.

  • Hearing

    Feb 19, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

HERMOSILLO V. THANOS

It appears that the FAC is alleging a cause of action for medical battery. CACI No. 503A sets forth the elements necessary to establish a cause of action for medical battery. Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 240-241, “We agree with the majority trend. The battery theory should be reserved for those circumstances when a doctor performs an operation to which the patient has not consented.

  • Hearing

    Feb 18, 2020

(NO CASE NAME AVAILABLE)

On 12/30/18, Plaintiff learned that Golden was on probation for having sexual relations with a patient, alerting her to the fact that a doctor having sexual relations with a patient is prohibited. Based on these facts, the Complaint asserts causes of action for: 1. Professional Medical Negligence 2. IIED 3. Battery 4. Assault 5. Breach of Fiduciary Duty 6. Sexual Harassment 7.

  • Hearing

    Feb 11, 2020

THE ESTATE OF LEWIS NYARECHA VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

The FAC alleges causes of action against Defendants for: (1) negligence; (2) negligence res ipsa loquitur; (3) negligent training; (4) battery; and (5) declaratory relief. Moving Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment and/or summary adjudication on the grounds that: (1) all of Plaintiff’s causes of action fail because Plaintiff failed to comply with the Government Tort Claims Act; and (2) all of Plaintiff’s causes of action are barred by the applicable statute of limitations.

  • Hearing

    Feb 07, 2020

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 14     last » 

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.

Please wait a moment while we gather your results.