After a prolonged labor, California OB/GYN Amita Kachru told patient Jane Doe that she had two options: (1) a cesarean section or (2) a vacuum assisted vaginal delivery. Jane objected to both procedures and told Kachru she wanted to continue laboring. But Kachru performed a vacuum-assisted delivery.
The trial court rejected Jane's battery claims, explaining that Jane had consented to admission to the hospital for delivery of her baby. The California Court of Appeal agreed that that "general" consent eliminated most of Jane's battery claims concerning a range of touching. But the appellate court reversed on the vacuum-assisted delivery, explaining that it was substantially different from the general labor and delivery care that Jane authorized on admission.
 |
| OB/GYN Amita Kachri |
No comments:
Post a Comment