Mink v. University of Chicago

United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois · Torts

TortsBatteryInformed ConsentProducts LiabilityFailure to WarnStatute of Limitationsbatterymedical battery

Facts

Between 1950 and 1952, defendants conducted a double-blind study at the University's Lying-In Hospital in which women receiving prenatal care were given DES to test whether it prevented miscarriages. Plaintiffs alleged they were not told they were part of an experiment and were not told the pills were DES. They further alleged defendants did not notify them until 1975 or 1976 of the possible relationship between DES taken during pregnancy and abnormal conditions or cancer risks in their children. The complaint sought damages for battery based on nonconsensual administration of DES, strict liability against Lilly, and negligent failure to notify.

Issue

Whether administering DES to patients without their knowledge or consent states a claim for battery under Illinois law rather than merely a negligence claim for lack of informed consent. Also, whether plaintiffs stated claims for strict products liability and failure to notify without alleging physical injury to themselves, and whether the battery claim was barred at the pleading stage by limitations or charitable immunity.

Rule

When a patient does not consent to a particular non-emergency treatment and is not even aware it is being administered, the claim may be pleaded as battery, because battery in the medical setting turns on unauthorized contact outside the scope of the patient's consent. To state battery, plaintiffs must allege intentional acts resulting in offensive contact with their persons and lack of consent. By contrast, strict products liability and negligence-based failure-to-notify claims require injury to the plaintiffs themselves, and an increased risk or injury only to their children is insufficient.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Cleveland, Dr. Nisha Patel told Elena Ruiz that she would receive standard prenatal vitamins during routine care at Lakefront Women's Clinic. Without telling Elena, the clinic instead enrolled her in a non-emergency study and gave her an experimental hormone pill; Elena later learned of the substitution but alleges no present physical injury to herself.

Which is the strongest characterization of Elena's claim under the majority rule?

Explanation. The majority distinguished true informed-consent cases from situations in which the patient never consented to the treatment itself. Where a patient is unaware a non-emergency drug is being administered, the claim may be pleaded as battery because the contact is unauthorized and outside the scope of consent. Physical injury to the plaintiff is not required to state that battery claim; nominal damages and mental disturbance may suffice once the tort is established. (Derived from Mink v. University of Chicago (n.d.).)