Betterton

It is settled that a doctor’s duty to disclose serious potential complications to a patient before performing a medical procedure is *751 not defined by the standards of the medical community. (Arato v. Avedon (1993) 5 Cal.4th 1172, 1191 [ 23 Cal.Rptr.2d 131 , 858 P.2d 598 ] (Arato).) However, whether a risk of serious complications exists can be a question appropriately reserved for resolution by medical experts. (Jambazian v. Borden (1994) 25 Cal.App.4th 836, 848-849 [ 30 Cal.Rptr.2d 768 ].) Here, we consider this distinction in connection with jury instructions covering both an informed consent claim and a general medical negligence claim.

Paul M. Betterton sued Dr. Jonathan Leichtling for malpractice. The jury returned a defense verdict. On appeal, Betterton contends (1) the court erroneously rejected his proposed jury instruction on informed consent; and (2) the instructions the court did give on negligence and informed consent resulted in a miscarriage of justice. We conclude that Betterton’s proposed instruction, while flawed, was a more accurate statement of the law than the instructions given by the court, which conflicted with the principles discussed in Arato…