Case Summary

1708 REVIEW DENIED A plaintiff suing for medical malpractice on the informed consent theory must prove that a reasonable person in his/her situation would not have consented to the procedure involved had the risks been properly disclosed, but need not prove that s/he would not have consented had proper disclosure been made; a plaintiff who is warned of the risk of contracting one disease but not another, and who would not have consented to the surgery had s/he known of the undisclosed risk, may recover damages under the informed consent theory for contracting the disease about which s/he had been warned; plaintiff's knowledge that she has contracted a disease that she had been warned was a risk of the procedure to which she consented, does not constitute discovery of malpractice on the informed consent theory and does not start the statute of limitations running on an action for damages for another disease, about which plaintiff he had not been warned; an appellate court has the inherent power to grant a calendar preference to a pending appeal.

WARREN v SCHECTER (Bone Disease) 57 CA4 1189 [See: Cobbs v Grant 8 C3 229; Arato v Avedon 5 C4 1172, T/AT 11/93; BAJI 611; Truman v Thomas 27 C3 285; Topa v Fireman's 39 CA4 1331, T/AT 12/95]