Grabowski v. Quigley
684 A.2d 610, 1996 Pa. Super. LEXIS 3525, 454 Pa. Super. 27 (1996)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The performance of a non-emergency surgical procedure by a physician to whom the patient has not given consent constitutes a battery, and a claim for such a battery does not require expert medical testimony to establish liability.
Facts:
- Edward Grabowski injured his back and sought treatment from Dr. Matthew R. Quigley.
- Quigley recommended surgery and represented to Grabowski that he would be the one performing the procedure.
- Grabowski agreed to undergo the surgery with the understanding that Quigley would be his surgeon.
- On the day of the surgery, after being prepped, Grabowski was given a consent form by a nurse that stated the surgery would be 'performed under the direction of Dr. Quigley, et al,' which he signed without further explanation.
- After Grabowski was placed under anesthesia, hospital staff discovered Quigley was in another county and unavailable.
- Dr. Joseph C. Maroon, another physician, directed Dr. Julian E. Bailes to begin the surgery in Quigley's absence.
- Bailes performed a major portion of the surgery before Quigley arrived over an hour later to complete the procedure.
- Grabowski only learned that Bailes had operated on him after requesting his medical records due to post-surgical complications.
Procedural Posture:
- Edward Grabowski commenced an action against Drs. Quigley, Bailes, and Maroon by filing a writ of summons in a Pennsylvania trial court.
- Grabowski filed an amended complaint asserting claims for battery, medical negligence, and breach of contract.
- The defendant doctors' preliminary objections to the complaint were denied by the trial court.
- During discovery, the trial court entered an order precluding Grabowski from utilizing expert testimony at trial.
- Based on the preclusion of expert testimony, the defendant doctors moved for summary judgment on all counts.
- The trial court granted the doctors' motions for summary judgment and dismissed them from the action.
- Grabowski, as the appellant, appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.
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 performing a non-emergency surgical procedure with a substitute surgeon, without the patient's specific consent to that surgeon, constitute a battery for which a claim can proceed without expert medical testimony?
Opinions:
Majority - Hudock, J.
Yes. Performing a non-emergency surgery with a substitute surgeon without the patient's specific consent constitutes a technical battery. An operation without the patient's consent is a technical assault, and liability arises from the unauthorized touching itself, not from any negligence in its performance. Therefore, unlike a medical malpractice claim which requires expert testimony to establish a breach of the standard of care and causation, a battery claim does not. The court reasoned that 'it is the very conduct of the unauthorized procedure which constitutes the tort,' regardless of whether the surgery was beneficial or performed perfectly. Because Grabowski presented facts showing he consented to surgery by Quigley only, a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the scope of his consent, particularly given the ambiguous 'et al' on the form signed just before surgery. This battery claim can proceed to a jury to determine the scope of consent and potential damages, which can include nominal damages for the unauthorized touching, compensation for proximately caused injuries, and damages for mental anguish.
Analysis:
This decision reinforces the legal distinction between claims of medical negligence, informed consent, and battery. By categorizing 'ghost surgery'—where a different surgeon operates without the patient's knowledge—as a battery, the court lowers the barrier for plaintiffs in such cases. The ruling's most significant impact is its holding that expert medical testimony is not required to sustain a battery claim, unlike a negligence claim. This makes it easier for such cases to survive summary judgment and reach a jury, emphasizing that a patient's right to consent to a specific physician is a fundamental, legally protected aspect of the physician-patient relationship, distinct from the quality of the medical care provided.
