What is medical battery?

Useful Rulings on Battery – Medical (Civil)

Recent Rulings on Battery – Medical (Civil)

DOE VS KEMPIAK, M.D

Under the Plan, Plaintiff's primary care physician was Doctor Rosel Reyes (Doctor Reyes). In early December 2018, Plaintiff made an appointment with Doctor Reyes out of concern about some red, raised, itchy spots that she had on her feet as well as white spots she had on her tongue. As a result of that visit and the concern regarding the spots on her feet, Doctor Reyes referred Plaintiff to a dermatologist – defendant Stephan Kempiak, M.D. (Doctor Kempiak).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DOE VS KEMPIAK, M.D

Under the Plan, Plaintiff's primary care physician was Doctor Rosel Reyes (Doctor Reyes). In early December 2018, Plaintiff made an appointment with Doctor Reyes out of concern about some red, raised, itchy spots that she had on her feet as well as white spots she had on her tongue. As a result of that visit and the concern regarding the spots on her feet, Doctor Reyes referred Plaintiff to a dermatologist – defendant Stephan Kempiak, M.D. (Doctor Kempiak).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

STEVEN PEISNER VS KECK HOSPITAL OF USC ET AL

DISCUSSION “[A] battery is an intentional tort that occurs when a doctor performs a procedure without obtaining any consent.” (Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316, 324.) A battery also occurs “[w]here 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.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

STEVEN PEISNER VS KECK HOSPITAL OF USC ET AL

DISCUSSION “[A] battery is an intentional tort that occurs when a doctor performs a procedure without obtaining any consent.” (Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316, 324.) A battery also occurs “[w]here 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.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

CHRISTOPHER B. MAGGIORE VS STEPHEN PINCUS, ET AL.

A medical battery is different from medical malpractice. “A medical battery occurs where ‘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, 104 Cal.Rptr. 505, 502 P.2d 1; see Piedra v. Dugan (2004) 123 Cal.App.4th 1483, 1495–1496, 21 Cal.Rptr.3d 36.)” (So v. Shin (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 652, 669.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

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

In her amended responses, M.P. stated that she went to Hospital’s emergency room on December 8, 2016 for abdominal pain and the emergency room doctor examined and referred her to a gynecologist, Dr. Sutton. She states that Dr. Sutton examined her at Hospital and directed her to make an appointment with him at his private practice. She states that Dr. Sutton was acting as an employee, agent, and/or servant of Hospital when he directed her to see him at his private practice.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DAD V. SCHWARTZ

This statute covers virtually any cause of action, including intentional torts such as fraud or battery, which arise out of the providing of medical services. (Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Court (1992) 3 Cal.4th 181, 192.) The motion to strike the punitive damages allegations is granted without prejudice to Plaintiffs seeking an order allowing for an amended pleading if appropriate.

  • Hearing

JANE DOE, ET AL. VS PEYMAN SAADAT, ET AL.

“The battery theory should be reserved for those circumstances when a doctor performs an operation to which the patient has not consented. When the patient gives permission to perform one type of treatment and the doctor performs another, the requisite element of deliberate intent to deviate from the consent given is present.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

SAGE M. MCADAMS VS KIUMARS ARFAI, ET AL.

This case is factually distinguishable from Cooper (1997) 56 CA4th 744 wherein the court held that allegations of sexual battery fell within the scope of CCP 425.13. There, a gynecologist was alleged to have committed sexual battery in the course of performing a gynecological exam. Id. at 746-747.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

KIMBERLY BATTAGLIA VS KRAIG LAMONT GOLDEN, MD, ET AL.

Third and Fourth Causes of Action – Battery and Assault “The elements of civil battery are: (1) defendant intentionally performed an act that resulted in a harmful or offensive contact with the plaintiff’s person; (2) plaintiff did not consent to the contact; and (3) the harmful or offensive contact caused injury, damage, loss or harm to plaintiff.” (Brown v. Rainsweiler (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 516, 526-527.)

  • Hearing

  • Judge

    Lori Ann Fournier or Olivia Rosales

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

ERIC DEVEZIN VS CHUCK DORFMAN, ET AL.

Jacks attests the psychiatric testing of Plaintiff Devezin will consist of an interview for a detailed history and formal mental status examination, and a standardized battery of written psychological tests. (Dr. Jacks Decl. ¶8.) In accordance with his reasonable and customary practice, the examination will span approximately five to six hours, excluding breaks. (Dr. Jacks Decl. ¶9.) Dr.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Employment

  • Sub Type

    Discrimination/Harass

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 battered by Defendant Jimmy Hang, a doctor of physical therapy employed by the University/Regents. Plaintiff also alleges that Regents failed to adequately supervise Hang, ignored signs of Hang’s dangerous propensities before hiring him and during his employment, and failed to warn Plaintiff about Hang.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

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

“A doctor rendering gynecological care…cannot render the full panoply of gynecological services without touching, probing or otherwise manipulating a woman’s genitalia. Thus when a gynecologist is accused, as here, of committing a sexual battery in the course of rendering gynecological services, that accusation is necessarily ‘directly related’ to the manner in which the gynecological services were rendered.” ” (Cooper v.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

FARRINGTON V. ROHLEN

“A typical medical battery case is where a patient has consented to a particular treatment, but the doctor performs a treatment that goes beyond the consent. ‘When an action is based upon the theory of surgery beyond consent, the gist of such action is the unwarranted exceeding of the consent. This is a theory of technical battery.’ For example, the patient consents to an electromyogram, a relatively uncomplicated procedure, but the doctor performs a myelogram, which involves a spinal puncture.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    other

RENEE DE PALMA VS JOSHUA ELLENHORN, M.D., ET AL.

Nor has it provided a basis for the court to conclude that no battery took place as alleged, given the FAC’s allegation that the hysterectomy was performed entirely without Plaintiff’s consent. (See Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 316, 324 [“[A] battery is an intentional tort that occurs when a doctor performs a procedure without obtaining any consent.”].) The demurrer is OVERRULED as to the second cause of action.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DOE VS KEMPIAK, M.D

Under the Plan, Plaintiff's primary care physician was Doctor Rosel Reyes (Doctor Reyes). In early December 2018, Plaintiff made an appointment with Doctor Reyes out of concern about some red, raised, itchy spots that she had on her feet as well as white spots she had on her tongue. As a result of that visit and the concern regarding the spots on her feet, Doctor Reyes referred Plaintiff to a dermatologist – defendant Stephan Kempiak, M.D. (Doctor Kempiak).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

DOE VS KEMPIAK, M.D

Under the Plan, Plaintiff's primary care physician was Doctor Rosel Reyes (Doctor Reyes). In early December 2018, Plaintiff made an appointment with Doctor Reyes out of concern about some red, raised, itchy spots that she had on her feet as well as white spots she had on her tongue. As a result of that visit and the concern regarding the spots on her feet, Doctor Reyes referred Plaintiff to a dermatologist – defendant Stephan Kempiak, M.D. (Doctor Kempiak).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

JENNIFER VICTORIAN VS DOCTORS RABBANI SHIMON DDS

NOTICE: ok RELIEF REQUESTED: Reconsideration, under CCP 473(b), of the Court’s 3/13/20 order granting summary judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on her Fourth Amended Complaint for Medical Battery. Plaintiff seeks an order vacating and setting aside the order entered on 3/13/20. RULING: The motion is denied. This action arises out of dental treatment provided by Defendant to Plaintiff in July 2017.

  • Hearing

KIMBERLY VALENTINE VS BEVERLY HILLS WELLNESS SURGERY CENTER, LLC, A LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY, ET AL.

On the other hand, conditional battery is a claim for medical battery under a violation of conditional consent. The patient must allege: (1) the patient’s consent was conditional; (2) the doctor intentionally violated the condition while providing treatment; and (3) the patient suffered harm as a result of the doctor's violation of the condition. (Conte, supra, 107 Cal.App.4th at 1269 [citing Ashcraft v. King (1991) 228 Cal.App.3d 604, 611.)

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

HANNAH VALENCIA VS CHILDREN'S HOSPITAL OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

DISCUSSION A patient may state a claim for medical battery against a physician when the physician fails to obtain the patient’s consent to a procedure, or performs a substantially different procedure than the one to which the patient consented. (Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 240–241.) “The battery theory should be reserved for those circumstances when a doctor performs an operation to which the patient has not consented.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

TAMARA SULLA, ET AL. VS VISHAL KAPOOR, ET AL.

See Cobb, supra, 8 Cal.3d at 240 (medical battery should be reserved for situations where “patient gives permission to perform one type of treatment and the doctor performs another”; where patient consents to certain treatment and doctor performs that treatment but an “undisclosed inherent complication with a low probability occurs, no intentional deviation from the consent given appears” and professional negligence is the proper cause of action).

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

  • Judge

    H. Jay Ford

  • County

    Los Angeles County, CA

DU VS. JOHN MUIR HEALTH

Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 239-241, the California Supreme Court held that most issues regarding consent to medical procedures involve only negligence, and not the intentional tort of battery. Under Cobbs the battery cause of action is reserved for cases in which the plaintiff did not consent at all or consented to one type of procedure but the doctor performed a substantially different procedure. (See also CACI 530A.) In her Opposition, plaintiff acknowledges Cobbs and accurately states the rule.

  • Hearing

LORI H VS JOSEPH EDWARD BEEZY, ET AL.

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. Thus when a gynecologist is accused … of committing a sexual battery in the course of rendering gynecological services, that accusation is necessarily ‘directly related’ to the manner in which the gynecological services were rendered.” (Cooper v. Superior Court (1997) 56 Cal.App.4th 744, 751.)

  • Hearing

MISRAK HAILE, ET AL. VS ARJANG NAIM, M.D., 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.” (Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 316, 324.) Here, the complaint adequately alleges a claim for medical battery. The complaint alleges that Dr.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

MISRAK HAILE, ET AL. VS ARJANG NAIM, M.D., 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.” (Saxena v. Goffney (2008) 159 Cal. App. 4th 316, 324.) Here, the complaint adequately alleges a claim for medical battery. The complaint alleges that Dr.

  • Hearing

  • Type

    Personal Injury/ Tort

  • Sub Type

    Medical Malpractice

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ... 16     last » 

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

Please wait a moment while we load this page.