Schiff

Schiff v. Prados

Good Law
112 Cal. Rptr. 2d 171·2001 Cal. App. LEXIS 769·2001 Daily Journal DAR 10547·92 Cal. App. 4th 692·2001 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 8547
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaSeptember 28, 2001A087171California6,853 words

Opinion

Opinion

Kay, J.

A doctor’s obligation to obtain a patient’s informed consent to medical treatment includes “a duty of reasonable disclosure of the available choices with respect to proposed therapy and of the dangers inherently and potentially involved in each.” (Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 243 [ 104 Cal.Rptr. 505 , 502 P.2d 1 ].) We hold that, as a matter of law, a treatment that cannot legally be administered in this state is not “available” within the meaning of this rule, and thus that a physician cannot be held liable for failing to disclose the existence of such a treatment.

I. Background

This appeal arises in a wrongful death action filed against Dr. Michael Prados and others including the Regents (Regents) of the University of California at San Francisco (UCSF) by Ric and Paula Schiff, the parents of Ciystin Schiff, who died at the age of six, two and one-half years after she was diagnosed with a brain tumor. There are two theories of liability: negligence in the provision of Crystin’s medical treatment; and failure to obtain the Schiffs’ informed consent to her treatment. This appeal is limited to the informed consent issue, and is taken by the Schiffs from the…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.