Robinson v. Cutchin

United States District Court for the District of Maryland · 2001 · Torts

Tortsinformed consentbatteryintentional infliction of emotional distresspunitive damagesmedical malpracticeinformed consentnegligence

Facts

Mrs. Robinson was admitted to the hospital on September 17, 1997 for delivery of her sixth child, and when labor did not progress she underwent an emergency C-section performed by Dr. Cutchin. During that operation, Dr. Cutchin also performed a bilateral tubal ligation, believing that Mrs. Robinson had consented, although she claimed she had not given informed consent to that sterilization procedure. Mrs. Robinson did not dispute that she consented to the C-section itself. She sought damages for emotional distress from being unable to have a seventh child, along with punitive damages.

Issue

Whether, under Maryland law, a patient who consented to an emergency C-section but allegedly did not give informed consent to an additional tubal ligation may pursue claims for battery and intentional infliction of emotional distress, and whether punitive damages are available on the remaining claim. The court also had to determine whether the evidentiary record was sufficient to send those claims to a jury.

Rule

Under Maryland law, a lack-of-informed-consent claim against a physician is treated as a negligence action, not as battery or assault. A battery requires intentional touching without consent that is harmful or offensive, and IIED requires intentional or reckless conduct, extreme and outrageous conduct, causation, and severe emotional distress, each pled and proved with specificity. Punitive damages are unavailable absent clear and convincing evidence of actual malice, meaning conscious and deliberate wrongdoing, evil or wrongful motive, intent to injure, ill will, or fraud.

🔒

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.

At a hospital in Baltimore, Nina Flores consented to laparoscopic surgery to remove an ovarian cyst. While she was under anesthesia, Dr. Evan Mercer also implanted a long-acting contraceptive device because he believed earlier clinic notes showed she wanted it, but Nina later claims she never gave informed consent for that additional procedure.

Under the Maryland rule reflected in the majority opinion, which claim best fits Nina's allegation regarding the additional procedure?

Explanation. Where the patient consented to the operative touching but disputes informed consent for an additional procedure performed during that operation, Maryland treats the claim as negligence rather than battery or assault. The majority opinion rejected recasting such medical informed-consent disputes as battery claims.