Lexplug logoLexplug

Mink v. University of Chicago

District Court, N.D. Illinois
460 F.Supp. 713 (1978)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The administration of a drug to a patient without their knowledge or consent constitutes a battery, as it is a non-consensual, offensive contact, distinct from a negligence claim for lack of informed consent which applies when a patient consents to treatment but is not fully apprised of the risks.


Facts:

  • Between 1950 and 1952, the University of Chicago and Eli Lilly & Company conducted a double-blind medical experiment.
  • As part of the experiment, the drug diethylstilbestrol (DES) was administered to approximately 1,000 pregnant women receiving prenatal care at the University's hospital.
  • The stated purpose of the study was to determine if DES was effective in preventing miscarriages.
  • The women were not informed that they were participating in an experiment, nor were they told that the pills they were given contained DES.
  • Plaintiffs allege that as a result of this exposure, their children later developed cellular abnormalities and an increased risk of cancer.
  • The medical community became aware of a potential link between DES and cancer in 1971.
  • The University of Chicago did not begin notifying the women of their participation in the experiment until late 1975 or 1976.

Procedural Posture:

  • Plaintiffs filed a class-action lawsuit against the University of Chicago and Eli Lilly & Company in the U.S. District Court.
  • The complaint asserted three causes of action: battery, strict products liability, and breach of duty to notify.
  • Both defendants filed a motion to dismiss the complaint in its entirety for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.

Locked

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 the administration of a drug to a patient without their knowledge or consent, as part of a medical experiment, constitute a battery under Illinois law?


Opinions:

Majority - Grady, J.

Yes. The administration of a drug to a patient without their knowledge or consent constitutes a battery. The court distinguishes between actions for battery and actions for negligence based on a lack of informed consent. A negligence action for lack of informed consent is proper when a patient consents to a particular treatment but is not adequately informed of its inherent risks. In contrast, a battery action is proper when there is a total lack of consent to the treatment itself. Here, the plaintiffs did not consent to DES treatment; they were unaware it was being administered. This situation is analogous to an unauthorized surgery, making it a battery. The elements of battery are met: the defendants' act of administering the drug was intentional (part of a planned experiment), the ingestion of an unknown substance constitutes an offensive contact, and there was a complete lack of consent from the plaintiffs for this specific treatment.



Analysis:

This decision solidifies the distinction between two key medical liability theories: battery and negligence (lack of informed consent). By classifying the non-consensual administration of an experimental drug as a battery, the court provides a cause of action for patients who are subjected to treatment without any consent whatsoever. This is significant because a battery claim does not require proof of physical injury to be successful; the offensive touching itself is the tort, allowing for nominal and emotional distress damages. The ruling reinforces the fundamental principle of patient autonomy and the right to determine what is done to one's own body, especially in the context of medical experiments.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Mink v. University of Chicago (1978) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Mink v. University of Chicago