1 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO 2 Opinion Number: __________ 3 Filing Date: November 23, 2015 4 NO. 33,725 5 RUTH E. DILLS, 6 Plaintiff-Appellant, 7 v. 8 NEW MEXICO HEART INSTITUTE, P.A., 9 Defendant-Appellee.
10 APPEAL FROM THE DISTRICT COURT OF SANTA FE COUNTY 11 Sarah M. Singleton, District Judge
12 The Davis Law Firm, LLC 13 Ben Davis 14 Albuquerque, NM
15 Davis, Gilchrist & Lee, P.C. 16 Bryan J. Davis 17 Albuquerque, NM
18 for Appellant 1 Keleher & McLeod, P.A. 2 Thomas C. Bird 3 Kathleen M. Wilson 4 Mary Behm 5 Cassandra R. Malone 6 Albuquerque, NM
7 for Appellee 1 OPINION 2 WECHSLER, Judge. 3 {1} In this medical malpractice case, we consider the propriety of the district 4 court’s jury instruction concerning the obligation of a doctor to inform a patient of 5 treatment alternatives. We hold that, under the facts of this case, the district court did 6 not err by instructing the jury that a “doctor has no duty to discuss alternatives to and 7 risks of treatment which the doctor can reasonably expect to be known to the patient.” 8 Accordingly, we affirm. 9 BACKGROUND 10 {2} Plaintiff Ruth E. Dills had a history of tachybrady syndrome for which she 11 received a pacemaker, with implanted leads, in 1996. She received a new pacemaker, 12 manufactured by Medtronics, in 2006. Plaintiff went to the emergency department of 13 the Heart Hospital in Albuquerque, New Mexico on February 10, 2009 with a 14 fractured lead placement. The following day, she met with Dr. Kathleen Blake at the 15 New Mexico Heart Institute who recommended that Plaintiff have her pacemaker 16 leads extracted and the generator replaced. Dr. Blake explained to Plaintiff the risks 17 and benefits of the lead extraction procedure. On February 20, 2009, Plaintiff met 18 with Dr. Luis Constantin who was to perform the procedure that day with Dr. Blake’s 19 assistance. For reasons unrelated to this case, the procedure was rescheduled and
2
1 performed on March 4, 2009. Plaintiff was discharged on March 6, 2009. She 2 returned to the Heart Hospital emergency department three days later and was 3 diagnosed with tricuspid valve regurgitation, atrial fibrillation, and right-sided 4 congestive heart failure. She was admitted to the hospital in May 2009 and various 5 procedures were performed, including open heart surgery to repair the torn tricuspid 6 valve and other repairs to correct heart defects caused by her underlying heart disease 7 process. 8 {3} Plaintiff brought this action against Defendant, which operates the Heart 9 Hospital, alleging the medical malpractice of Defendant’s doctors and agents, Dr. 10 Blake and Dr. Constantin. Plaintiff originally named Dr. Blake and Dr. Constantin as 11 defendants, but, for reasons not related to this appeal, the claims against Dr. 12 Constantin were dismissed, and Dr. Blake was granted summary judgment with 13 respect to the claims against her. 14 {4} The gravamen of Plaintiff’s action, as relevant to this appeal, was that she was 15 not informed of alternative procedures to the lead extraction procedure and that the 16 lead extraction procedure was not indicated under the circumstances. In this regard, 17 Plaintiff maintained, among other things, that when she went to the Heart Hospital 18 emergency department on February 10, 2009, checking by the Medtronics 19 representative only indicated that one of the two pacemaker leads was malfunctioning
3
1 and leaking current, not that the leads needed to be changed, and that checking the 2 pacemaker again on the following day also did not confirm the need for lead 3 replacement. Plaintiff further maintained that Dr. Blake did not inform Plaintiff of 4 alternative courses of action, including “reprogramming the pacemaker to unipolar 5 mode and capping and abandoning the existing leads and implanting new ones” and 6 that Dr. Constantin also “did not provide Plaintiff with information regarding 7 alternatives to [pacemaker] lead extraction.” Plaintiff contended, among other things, 8 that Dr. Constantin damaged a leaflet on her tricuspid valve during the lead extraction 9 procedure and that she developed severe pain from the pacemaker pocket Dr. 10 Constantin made to implant an antibiotic pouch. 11 {5} At trial, two issues were presented to the jury: whether Dr. Constantin failed 12 to offer and inform Plaintiff of alternatives to pacemaker lead extraction and whether 13 Dr. Constantin performed a medical procedure, the lead extraction, that was not 14 reasonably necessary for Plaintiff’s condition. The jury returned a verdict for 15 Defendant. Plaintiff appealed from the district court’s judgment. On appeal, this 16 Court decided Plaintiff’s appeal in part by memorandum opinion on the summary 17 calendar and assigned to the general calendar the single issue of whether the district 18 court correctly instructed the jury concerning the law of informed consent.
4
1 FACTUAL BASIS UNDERLYING THE JURY INSTRUCTION 2 {6} Plaintiff did not designate trial transcripts for review on appeal. See Rule 12- 3 211(E) NMRA (“Each appellant shall be responsible for the timely preparation and 4 filing of the transcript of proceedings.”). While Plaintiff contended that neither Dr. 5 Blake nor Dr. Constantin informed her of treatment alternatives to lead replacement, 6 Defendant offered the testimony of the doctors at trial in support of its position that 7 Plaintiff had been informed of treatment alternatives. Because Plaintiff did not 8 designate trial transcripts for review on appeal, Defendant has provided a transcript 9 of the testimony of Dr. Blake in which she discussed her receipt of Plaintiff’s 10 informed consent. Defendant also has referred to portions of Dr. Constantin’s 11 deposition that Plaintiff discusses in her brief in chief on appeal. 12 {7} Dr. Blake testified that she did not have an independent recollection of her 13 conversation about informed consent with Plaintiff that had occurred seven years 14 earlier. She testified, however, that she had obtained informed consent for a medical 15 procedure from patients approximately 8,000 to 10,000 times and that she followed 16 the same typical format to do so. She testified that she would routinely “talk about 17 what the problem is and what the alternatives are for treating that problem and what 18 the risks are for those alternatives, [and] what the benefits are.” She would have given 19 Plaintiff three treatment options: (1) not to have taken any action and leaving the
5
1 pacemaker programmed as it was, (2) surgically replacing the pacemaker ventricular 2 lead, and (3) surgically extracting both leads and replacing them with new ones. 3 {8} Dr. Blake’s summary in her notes reflects that she discussed with Plaintiff “the 4 need for lead extraction” and advised “that both leads be removed because we may 5 otherwise be back in a short time from now to deal with an old worn-out lead.” The 6 notes further state, “all questions answered, good understanding confirmed, and she 7 agrees to proceed next week with me and Dr. Constantin.” Dr. Blake also testified 8 that when she concluded her discussion with Plaintiff, she believed that she had “a 9 full and thorough informed consent discussion with her.” She did not expect that Dr. 10 Constantin “would then redo or do again another full informed consent discussion” 11 because Plaintiff was Dr. Blake’s patient, with whom she had established a long-term 12 relationship, and Dr. Blake was making the recommendation. In his deposition, Dr. 13 Constantin testified that when he offered to discuss the procedure with Plaintiff, at 14 which time he also intended to discuss alternatives, Plaintiff “indicated that she had 15 already had a discussion with Dr. Blake and that she was very comfortable . . . with 16 the fact that I was doing the procedure on the recommendation of Dr. Blake.” 17 PROPRIETY OF THE JURY INSTRUCTION 18 {9} Our Supreme Court in Gerety v. Demers, 1978-NMSC-097, 92 N.M. 396, 589 19 P.2d 180, discussed in detail the law on informed consent in medical malpractice
6
1 lawsuits. The Court explained that when a cause of action is in negligence—as 2 opposed to battery—the physician has the obligation to obtain the patient’s informed 3 consent and also to communicate to a patient information concerning “the inherent 4 and potential hazards of the proposed treatment, the alternatives to that treatment, if 5 any, and the results likely if the patient remains untreated.” Id. ¶ 65 (quoting 6 Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 787-88 (D.C. Cir. 1972)). Our jury instructions 7 concerning informed consent and duty to inform are consistent with Gerety. Relevant 8 here, the duty to inform instruction, UJI 13-1104B NMRA, states:
9 In treating [his] [her] patient, a doctor is under the duty to 10 communicate to the patient [, or to the patient’s representative when the 11 patient is a minor or is incapacitated,] that information which a 12 reasonably prudent patient under similar circumstances would need to 13 know about:
14 1. the patient’s condition; [and] 15 2. the alternatives for treatment; [and]
16 3. the inherent and potential hazards of the proposed 17 treatment; [and]
18 4. the likely result if the condition remains untreated.
19 The duty to inform does not require a doctor to discuss with [his] 20 [her] patient every risk of proposed treatment no matter how small or 21 remote. [A doctor has no duty to discuss risks which the doctor can 22 reasonably expect to be obvious or known to the patient.]
23 UJI 13-1104B (alterations in original).
7
1 {10} The Use Note to UJI 13-1104B further instructs that the bracketed sentence in 2 the second paragraph “should not be used unless the jury could find that the 3 information which the patient contends was not disclosed is information which the 4 patient already knew or is a matter of common understanding.” 5 {11} The district court in this case modified the above instruction to read as follows:
6 In treating his patient, Dr. Constantin[] is under the duty to 7 communicate to [Plaintiff] that information which a reasonably prudent 8 patient under similar circumstances would need to know about:
9 1. the alternatives for treatment; and 10 2. the likely result if the lead condition remained untreated.
11 A doctor has no duty to discuss alternatives to and risks of 12 treatment which the doctor can reasonably expect to be known to the 13 patient.
14 On appeal, Plaintiff contends that the district court erred as a matter of law in giving 15 the modified instruction because the bracketed sentence only applies to the “inherent 16 and potential hazards of the proposed treatment” as stated in UJI 13-1104B(3) and not 17 to the “alternatives for treatment” set forth in UJI 13-1104B(2). 18 {12} We review de novo the district court’s instruction to the jury. See Benavidez 19 v. City of Gallup, 2007-NMSC-026, ¶ 19, 141 N.M. 808, 161 P.3d 853 (“We review 20 jury instructions de novo to determine whether they correctly state the law and are
8
1 supported by the evidence introduced at trial.” (internal quotation marks and citation 2 omitted)).1 3 {13} We do not read Gerety or UJI 13-1104B in the limited manner Plaintiff urges. 4 To the contrary, the language of Gerety, adopted from Canterbury, indicates a 5 flexibility that depends on a rule of reason and the particular circumstances.
6 The scope of the standard is not subjective as to either the 7 physician or the patient; it remains objective with due regard for the 8 patient’s informational needs and with suitable leeway for the 9 physician’s situation.
10 ....
11 There is no bright line separating the significant from the 12 insignificant; the answer in any case must abide a rule of reason. Some 13 dangers—infection, for example—are inherent in any operation; there 14 is no obligation to communicate those of which persons of average 15 sophistication are aware. Even more clearly, the physician bears no 16 responsibility for discussion of hazards the patient has already 17 discovered, or those having no apparent materiality to patients’ decision 18 on therapy. . . . Whenever non-disclosure of particular risk information 19 is open to debate by reasonable-minded men, the issue is for the finder 20 of the facts.
21 Gerety, 1978-NMSC-097, ¶ 65 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
22 Rule 1-051(D) NMRA requires the use of an applicable uniform jury
1
23 instruction “unless under the facts or circumstances of the particular case the 24 published UJI Civil is erroneous or otherwise improper, and the trial court so finds 25 and states of record its reasons.” Plaintiff does not argue that the district court did not 26 follow Rule 1-051(D). Because Plaintiff did not designate a trial transcript on appeal, 27 we cannot determine the manner in which the district court addressed Rule 1-051(D) 28 or even whether it considered it necessary to do so. It is not an issue in this appeal.
9
1 {14} Under Defendant’s theory of this case, Plaintiff’s approach would require, as 2 a matter of law, that a doctor provide information to a patient that the patient not only 3 already had been provided but that the patient indicated that she did not wish to 4 receive. The doctor would have this burden, according to Plaintiff, because the 5 information related to alternative treatment rather than the risks of a procedure. 6 Plaintiff finds rationale in such a distinction because alternatives to treatment are not 7 likely known to the general public. However, the knowledge of the general public is 8 not the issue; it is whether the doctor can reasonably expect that the information is 9 either obvious to or known by the patient. See UJI 13-1104B. There is no clear 10 distinction between alternative treatment and treatment risks in this regard. 11 {15} A party is entitled to a jury instruction on the party’s theory of the case if it is 12 supported by the evidence. Benavidez, 2007-NMSC-026, ¶ 19. From the limited 13 record of the trial that we have before us in this appeal, it appears that Defendant 14 presented evidence that Dr. Blake provided informed consent to Plaintiff that 15 included alternatives to treatment. Under Plaintiff’s position, the jury would not 16 address whether Dr. Constantin, on behalf of Defendant, acted reasonably in his 17 communication with Plaintiff. This reading of exceptions to disclosure discussed in 18 Gerety is overly restrictive. Rather, we read Gerety as embracing an approach based
10
1 on reasonableness and the particular circumstances of the doctor-patient relationship. 2 The district court did not err by instructing the jury in this manner. 3 CONCLUSION 4 {16} The district court did not err in its jury instruction concerning Dr. Constantin’s 5 duty to discuss alternatives to treatment with Plaintiff. We affirm the district court’s 6 judgment on the jury verdict in favor of Defendant. 7 {17} IT IS SO ORDERED.
8 ________________________________ 9 JAMES J. WECHSLER, Judge
10 WE CONCUR:
11 ________________________________ 12 LINDA M. VANZI, Judge
13 ________________________________ 14 M. MONICA ZAMORA, Judge