|
4306 REVIEW DENIED A question of fact existed about whether a physician who recommended that a patient be treated by a chiropractor associated with a clinic operated by the physician and who was present during the procedure shared joint responsibility with the chiropractor for management of the patient's case and therefore owed the patient a duty to inform regarding risks of the procedure; a trier of fact justifiably could conclude that the reasonable paraplegic in the patient's position who had been paralyzed by a prior surgery and was dependent upon the use of his arms and shoulders for mobility would have declined the procedure if informed that it could result in a fracture and torn rotator cuff.CitationWILSON v MERRITT (Shoulder Procedure) 142 CA4 1125 [See: Daum v SpineCare 52 CA4 1285, T/AT 4/97; Spann v Irwin 34 CA4 644, T/AT 6/95]
|
|
