Can a Patient Assume Legal Risk of Injury by Not Following Doctor’s Orders?
-
tl;dr version
Mr. B has heart disease and other co-morbidities. Has cardiac stent placed and told to not exert himself for a week. 5 days later goes hunting, climbs into deer stand, falls out after fainting, breaks bones.
Sues doctor.
-
The Appellate Court was clearly wrong and it's astounding that they overturned the original decision.
-
Standard of care. Whether the doctor's orders are reasonable. Whether the patient's actions are reasonable.
"7 days" of "no exertion" after a stent insertion sounds reasonable to me, but I am but a layman on this issue. Let the specialists/practitioners argue this out. If the question comes down to "what does 'exertion' mean to a lay person," the judge and the jurors can resolve that themselves as lay people.
-
Remind me to never put you on a jury.
-
Does seem kind of goofy to overturn.
