Segal v. McBride
Plaintiff and appellant Dr. Jack L. Segal brought a medical malpractice action against defendants and respondents Dr. Duncan Q. McBride and the Regents of the University of California[1](defendants) arising from back surgery Dr. McBride performed on Dr. Segal at the UCLA medical facility in Santa Monica.[2] At trial, Dr. Segal proceeded under the theories that Dr. McBride was negligent in using a morphine paste at the surgical site to reduce Dr. Segals postsurgical pain, and that Dr. McBride failed to obtain Dr. Segals informed consent to the surgery because Dr. McBride did not inform Dr. Segal that he would use the morphine paste. The trial court granted defendants motion for a directed verdict. On the issue of informed consent, the trial court held that the duty to inform a patient of the use of morphine paste to establish a lack of informed consent must be proved through expert witness testimony, which Dr. Segal failed to present at trial. On appeal, Dr. Segal contends that the trial court erred in holding that informed consent must be proved through expert witness testimony. Alternatively, Dr. Segal contends that even if the trial court correctly ruled on the issue of informed consent, it erred when it ruled that he could not testify as an expert witness on that issue. Dr. Segal does not contest the trial courts directed verdict on the issue of the alleged negligent use of the morphine paste. Court affirm.
Comments on Segal v. McBride