Ashcraft v. King
278 Cal.Rptr. 900, 228 Cal. App. 3d 604, 91 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 1926 (1991)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A physician is subject to liability for battery when they perform a medical procedure that violates an express condition placed on the patient's consent, as such an act exceeds the scope of the consent given.
Facts:
- In 1983, Daisy Ashcraft, a 16-year-old, was diagnosed with scoliosis and referred to Dr. John King for corrective surgery.
- During a consultation, Ashcraft and her mother, Lulu Ashcraft, discussed blood transfusions with Dr. King.
- Lulu Ashcraft testified that she explicitly conditioned consent for the surgery on the exclusive use of family-donated blood, fearing diseases from the general blood supply.
- Dr. King acknowledged the discussion and instructed the Ashcrafts to make arrangements for the family blood donations with the hospital.
- Several of Ashcraft's relatives donated blood at the hospital specifically for her surgery.
- During the operation, Dr. King used blood from the hospital's general supply, and none of the family-donated blood was transfused into Ashcraft.
- The blood transfused to Ashcraft was from an HIV-positive donor.
- In 1987, Ashcraft learned she had contracted HIV from the transfusion during her surgery.
Procedural Posture:
- Daisy Ashcraft sued Dr. King in a state trial court for medical malpractice, asserting theories of negligence and battery.
- At the conclusion of the evidence presentation at trial, the court granted Dr. King's motion for a nonsuit on the battery cause of action.
- The case was submitted to the jury solely on the negligence claim.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of the defendant, Dr. King.
- Plaintiff Daisy Ashcraft appealed the judgment against her to the intermediate court of appeal.
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 surgeon commit a battery by proceeding with a medical procedure that intentionally violates an express condition the patient placed on their consent for that procedure?
Opinions:
Majority - Johnson, J.
Yes. A surgeon commits a battery by exceeding the conditions imposed by a patient's consent. A patient has the right to impose express limitations on a doctor's authority to perform an operation, and a doctor who intentionally ignores such a condition is liable for battery because the touching is unconsented to. The court found that Ashcraft presented sufficient evidence for a jury to conclude that her consent was conditioned on the use of family-donated blood and that Dr. King willfully disregarded this condition. The defendant's argument that the blood source was a 'collateral matter' was rejected; the court held that an express condition imposed by the patient is of primary importance and cannot be ignored. Therefore, the trial court's decision to grant a nonsuit on the battery claim was a prejudicial error because it prevented the jury from considering a valid theory of liability.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the critical distinction between medical negligence (often related to a lack of informed consent) and medical battery (a complete lack of consent or exceeding the scope of consent). By holding that a violation of an express condition constitutes a battery, the court strongly affirms the principle of patient autonomy and the right to control one's own medical treatment. This decision establishes that a doctor's duty extends beyond performing a procedure with skill; they must also strictly adhere to any explicit limitations placed on their authority by the patient. The ruling makes it easier for plaintiffs to bring a battery claim in such circumstances, which does not require proving a deviation from the standard of care as a negligence claim does.
