Mims v. Boland
1964 Ga. App. LEXIS 674, 138 S.E.2d 902, 110 Ga. App. 477 (1964)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For a patient to effectively withdraw consent for a medical procedure that is already in progress, the patient must: (1) unequivocally convey the withdrawal of consent through words or actions, leaving no room for doubt; and (2) it must be medically feasible for the physician to cease the procedure without endangering the patient's health or life. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving both conditions, including providing medical evidence for the second.
Facts:
- A female patient, who had been under the care of Dr. Boland for years, scheduled an appointment for an examination.
- During the examination, Dr. Boland's laboratory technician, Woolley, began to administer a barium enema.
- The patient, who previously had a colostomy, told Woolley that she should insert the catheter tube herself because she knew how to do so without causing pain due to a 'crook' in her colostomy.
- Woolley refused, stating, 'No, you don’t know how to do it,' and proceeded to insert the tube himself, causing the patient significant pain.
- As Woolley administered the barium, the patient protested that he was giving her too much, stating she had only a small part of her large colon.
- The patient continued to protest, saying, 'That is just all I can take. It’s just killing me,' and begged the defendants not to give her any more as she suffered intense pain and began to shake uncontrollably.
- The defendants continued the procedure despite her protestations.
Procedural Posture:
- The plaintiff filed suit against her physician and his laboratory technician for assault and battery in a Georgia trial court.
- After a trial on the merits, the plaintiff made a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
- The plaintiff, as plaintiff in error (appellant), appealed the denial of her motion for a new trial to the Court of Appeals of Georgia.
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 patient's expression of pain and disagreement with the method of a medical procedure, once it has begun, constitute an effective withdrawal of consent sufficient to hold the physician liable for assault and battery if the procedure continues?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Judge Bell
No. A patient's expressions of pain and disagreement with the method of a medical procedure do not, by themselves, constitute an effective withdrawal of consent. To subject a physician to liability for battery, consent previously given must be withdrawn in a manner that satisfies a two-part test. First, the patient's revocation must be unequivocal, using language or actions that can be subject to no other inference and come from a clear and rational mind, leaving no room for doubt. The court found the plaintiff's statements were merely protestations of pain and disagreement with the technique, not an unambiguous revocation. Second, it must be medically feasible for the physician to desist at that point without the cessation being detrimental to the patient's health or life. The plaintiff has the burden of proving this second element with medical evidence, which she failed to do. Since neither criterion was met, the continuation of the examination did not constitute an assault and battery.
Analysis:
This case establishes a significant legal standard for the withdrawal of consent during a medical procedure, creating a high bar for patients to succeed on a battery claim. By requiring an unequivocal revocation and proof of medical feasibility to desist, the court prioritizes the physician's professional judgment and the patient's safety over a patient's absolute right to bodily autonomy once a procedure is underway. This ruling creates a new, specific legal test that places a heavy evidentiary burden on the plaintiff, requiring expert medical testimony to prove that stopping the procedure would not have been harmful. The decision significantly shields the medical profession from liability in situations where a patient's complaints are ambiguous or where stopping treatment could pose a risk.
