Albany Urology Clinic, P.C. v. Cleveland
528 S.E.2d 777, 2000 Fulton County D. Rep. 945, 272 Ga. 296 (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Absent patient inquiry, there is no common law or statutory duty for physicians or other professionals in Georgia to disclose unspecified personal life factors that might subjectively affect their performance, and such non-disclosure cannot form the basis for an independent fraud or battery claim or vitiate consent unless directly related to diagnoses, treatments, or procedures, or if a causal nexus to impairment is shown.
Facts:
- In 1993, William Cleveland consulted urologist Timothy Trulock, M.D., about a lump on the underside of his penis.
- Dr. Trulock expressed concern that Cleveland might have penile cancer and recommended surgery.
- Cleveland signed an informed consent statement, and Dr. Trulock performed surgery under general anesthesia to remove the lump.
- Following the surgery, Cleveland began to experience an acutely painful ninety-degree curvature of his penis upon erection and a resulting inability to have intercourse.
- Cleveland's expert later testified that the lump was caused by Peyronie’s Disease, not cancer, and might have been treated effectively without surgery.
- During the general time of Cleveland’s treatment, Dr. Trulock used illegal drugs outside of work and when he was not on call.
- There was no direct evidence that Dr. Trulock was impaired or under the immediate or residual influence of cocaine at the time he made decisions regarding Cleveland’s treatment and performed surgery.
Procedural Posture:
- William Cleveland sued Dr. Timothy Trulock and the Albany Urology Clinic (collectively 'Trulock') in a state trial court, alleging medical negligence, battery, and breach of contract.
- Cleveland later amended his complaint in the trial court to add a claim for fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation regarding Dr. Trulock's illegal drug use.
- Prior to trial, the trial court dismissed Cleveland's claim for battery after finding the pleading defective.
- The jury returned a defendant's verdict on the malpractice claim.
- The jury returned plaintiffs' verdicts on the fraudulent concealment or misrepresentation claim.
- The trial court subsequently granted Trulock’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) on the fraud claim, ruling that Dr. Trulock had no duty to disclose his cocaine use and the evidence failed to establish requisite intent for fraud.
- The Court of Appeals reversed the trial court's grant of JNOV on the fraud claim, holding that Dr. Trulock's failure to disclose his cocaine use was equivalent to actual misrepresentation, and also reversed the trial court's dismissal of Cleveland’s claim for battery.
- The Supreme Court of Georgia granted certiorari to consider the Court of Appeals' ruling.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a physician have an affirmative duty to voluntarily disclose personal life factors, such as illegal drug use, to a patient, and if not, can the failure to disclose such factors support independent claims for fraud or battery, thereby vitiating the patient's consent?
Opinions:
Majority - Sears, Justice
No, a physician does not have an affirmative duty to voluntarily disclose personal life factors like illegal drug use to a patient, and such non-disclosure cannot support independent claims for fraud or battery or vitiate consent. Neither the common law nor the Georgia informed consent statute (OCGA § 31-9-6.1) imposes a general duty on physicians to disclose 'unspecified life factors' that might subjectively affect their performance, absent patient inquiry. The informed consent statute, being in derogation of common law, must be strictly construed and cannot be expanded by courts to include personal life factors not explicitly listed. Therefore, without a duty to disclose, failure to disclose personal drug use cannot logically support a claim for fraudulent concealment. Furthermore, the legislature has specified that failure to make even required informed consent disclosures gives rise only to professional negligence, not an independent cause of action. Consent for battery is vitiated only when an 'artifice' is directly related to the subject matter of the professional relationship (diagnoses, treatments, procedures). Extending this to a physician's undisclosed personal life factor, not directly related to the professional relationship, without evidence of impairment or a causal nexus to the injury, would be based on speculation. Public policy also militates against creating such a duty, as it would be impossible to define which personal factors would require disclosure, leading to unworkable and subjective standards for professionals.
Concurring in part and dissenting in part - Carley, Justice
No, the judgment cannot rest upon the theory that Dr. Trulock’s non-disclosure of his cocaine use is actionable as an independent tort of fraud. However, yes, recovery can be based upon the alternative theory that Dr. Trulock committed a battery against Mr. Cleveland. I concur with the majority that non-disclosure of cocaine use does not constitute an independent fraud claim. However, I dissent regarding the battery claim. A physician has a duty to obtain a patient's valid consent to avoid liability for battery. Consent is vitiated (invalidated) when obtained by a material misrepresentation or fraudulent concealment, especially within the confidential physician-patient relationship. While OCGA § 31-9-6.1 enumerates general risks, it does not prevent liability for concealment of other risks, particularly regarding the physician's qualifications. Dr. Trulock admitted he intended to conceal his cocaine use, which is an illegal act that could result in the loss of his medical license (OCGA § 43-34-37 (a) (4), (13)). This is a material fact, not merely a subjective preference, and a jury should determine its materiality to Cleveland's consent. Public policy concerns about defining 'life factors' are irrelevant when dealing with a doctor's illegal conduct that puts their professional license in jeopardy. Dr. Trulock's failure to disclose this objectively significant factor crossed the line for obtaining valid consent.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant limitation on a professional's affirmative duty to disclose personal information to clients in Georgia. It reinforces the principle that informed consent statutes are to be strictly construed, preventing judicial expansion of disclosure requirements beyond legislative intent. The ruling clarifies that a professional's undisclosed personal factors, even if morally objectionable, do not automatically create independent claims for fraud or battery unless directly linked to the professional services rendered or shown to cause impairment. This channels patient remedies primarily through professional negligence (malpractice) claims for deficient services, rather than opening broad, subjective avenues for tort claims based on a professional's private life.
