Defendant Phillip Milgram, M.D.'s demurrer to the battery and intentional deceit causes of action in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is sustained as to both causes of action.
Battery
The general rule is set forth in Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229.
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, there is a clear case of battery. (Berkey v. Anderson (1969) supra, 1 Cal.App.2d 790, 82 Cal.Rptr. 67 (allegation of consent to permit doctor to perform a procedure no more complicated than the electromyograms plaintiff had previously undergone, when the actual procedure was a myelogram involving a spinal puncture); Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hosp. (1958) 251 Minn. 427, 88 N.W.2d 186 (plaintiff consented to a prostate resection when uninformed that this procedure involved tying off his sperm ducts); Corn v. French (1955) 71 Nev. 280, 289 P.2d 173 (patient con
Hearing Date
October 11, 2018
Category
Civil - Unlimited
For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.
Defendant Phillip Milgram, M.D.'s demurrer to the battery and intentional deceit causes of action in Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is sustained as to both causes of action.
Battery
The general rule is set forth in Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229.
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, there is a clear case of battery. (Berkey v. Anderson (1969) supra, 1 Cal.App.2d 790, 82 Cal.Rptr. 67 (allegation of consent to permit doctor to perform a procedure no more complicated than the electromyograms plaintiff had previously undergone, when the actual procedure was a myelogram involving a spinal puncture); Bang v. Charles T. Miller Hosp. (1958) 251 Minn. 427, 88 N.W.2d 186 (plaintiff consented to a prostate resection when uninformed that this procedure involved tying off his sperm ducts); Corn v. French (1955) 71 Nev. 280, 289 P.2d 173 (patient con