Loretta Sargent v. William Shaffer, M.d.

Summary

The court held that the trial court’s informed-consent jury instruction was legally deficient because it stated only the professional standard of care and omitted the statutory requirement that the information provide a reasonable individual with a general understanding of the procedure, alternatives, and substantial risks. It clarified that whether to give an instruction is reviewed for abuse of discretion, while the legal content of an instruction is reviewed de novo. Because the omission could have affected the informed-consent verdict, the court reversed and remanded for a new trial limited to that issue. Justice Abramson concurred in the result only while Justice Keller, dissenting, would have affirmed because the statute creates a presumption or safe harbor rather than an additional statutory duty.