Karl J. Pizzalotto, MD, Ltd. v. Wilson
1983 La. LEXIS 11389, 437 So. 2d 859 (1983)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A surgeon commits a battery by performing an operation of a different nature than the one to which the patient consented, unless an immediate emergency arises that seriously threatens the patient's life or health, requiring the unauthorized procedure.
Facts:
- Dietrich Wilson experienced severe lower abdominal pain and consulted Dr. Karl Pizzalotto, who diagnosed her with potential endometriosis and pelvic inflammatory disease (PID).
- After getting a second opinion which confirmed the diagnosis, Wilson consented to a diagnostic laparoscopy performed by Dr. Pizzalotto.
- The laparoscopy confirmed endometriosis and PID but could not determine the full extent of the disease due to massive lesions.
- Wilson then gave written consent for a 'laparotomy—lysis of adhesions, fulguration of endometrioma,' which is a conservative exploratory surgery intended to preserve her reproductive organs.
- Dr. Pizzalotto never discussed with Wilson the possibility of a hysterectomy or the removal of her reproductive organs, though he noted a 'probable salpingo-oophorectomy' on the hospital chart.
- During the laparotomy, Dr. Pizzalotto found extensive organ damage and, believing Wilson was already sterile and would require another surgery soon, performed a total hysterectomy and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy, removing all of her reproductive organs.
- Wilson expressed a strong desire to have children and was very upset upon learning her reproductive organs had been removed.
- Following the surgery, Wilson refused to pay her surgical bill, which led to the litigation.
Procedural Posture:
- Karl J. Pizzalotto, M.D., Ltd. sued Dietrich Wilson in a Louisiana trial court to recover payment for the surgery.
- Wilson filed a reconventional demand (counterclaim) against Dr. Pizzalotto for damages, alleging battery and medical malpractice for the unauthorized hysterectomy.
- A trial jury rendered a verdict in favor of Dr. Pizzalotto, rejecting Wilson's claims.
- Wilson, as appellant, appealed to the Louisiana Court of Appeal, First Circuit.
- The Court of Appeal affirmed the trial court's judgment in favor of Dr. Pizzalotto, the appellee.
- The Supreme Court of Louisiana granted Wilson's application for a writ of certiorari to review the lower courts' decisions.
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 performing a total hysterectomy when the patient consented only to a conservative, exploratory laparotomy, and no immediate, life-threatening emergency existed to justify the more extensive, non-consensual procedure?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Dennis
Yes, the surgeon committed a battery. A physician may not act beyond a patient's authorization except when a situation seriously threatens the patient's health or life. Wilson's consent was explicitly limited to a conservative, exploratory laparotomy aimed at preserving her reproductive organs. She never expressly or impliedly consented to a total hysterectomy, which was a radically different procedure inimical to the goal of the authorized surgery. The emergency exception does not apply because, while further surgery might have been needed before she left the hospital, there was no evidence that an immediate removal of her organs was necessary to preserve her life or health. The generic, blanket consent form signed at the hospital was too ambiguous to authorize a major procedure that was not contemplated or discussed.
Dissenting - Justice Marcus
No, the surgeon's actions were justified because an emergency existed which statutorily implied the patient's consent. Under Louisiana law, an emergency exists when a procedure is medically necessary and any delay could reasonably be expected to jeopardize the patient's health. During the authorized surgery, Dr. Pizzalotto discovered the patient's condition was far worse than anticipated, rendering her sterile and creating a health risk that would have required a second surgery within days. In the competent medical judgment of the surgeon, assisting surgeon, and pathologist, immediate removal of the organs was necessary to avoid serious health problems, thus meeting the statutory definition of an emergency and implying consent.
Dissenting - Justice Blanche
No, the surgeon did not commit a battery. Dr. Pizzalotto exercised sound medical judgment in performing a procedure that was in the patient's best interest. The evidence showed she was already sterile, and failure to remove the extensively damaged organs would have constituted a 'marked breach of competence' and subjected her to the trauma and risks of a second operation. The doctor should not be held liable for choosing the best medical course of action that spared the patient further jeopardy to her health.
Analysis:
This case strongly reaffirms the primacy of patient autonomy and informed consent in medical treatment, treating unauthorized surgery as a battery regardless of medical necessity or the surgeon's good faith. It strictly construes the emergency exception, requiring an immediate threat to life or health, not merely a high probability of needing subsequent surgery. The decision serves as a powerful precedent against medical paternalism, clarifying that a doctor cannot substitute their judgment for the patient's explicit authorization for a specific procedure. It also signals that boilerplate, blanket consent forms will not protect physicians who perform procedures substantially different from those discussed with the patient.
