CACI No. 553. Affirmative Defense - Emotional State of Patient

Judicial Council of California Civil Jury Instructions (2020 edition)

Download PDF
553.Affirmative Defense - Emotional State of Patient
[Name of defendant] claims that [he/she/nonbinary pronoun] did not have
to inform [name of plaintiff] of the risks of the [insert medical procedure].
[A/An] [insert type of medical practitioner] does not have to provide
information about risks if the information will so seriously upset the
patient that the patient will not be able to reasonably consider the risks
of refusing to have the medical procedure.
If [name of defendant] has proved that [name of plaintiff] would have been
so seriously upset by being told of the risks that [he/she/nonbinary
pronoun] would not have been able to reasonably consider the risks of
refusing to have the [insert medical procedure], then [name of defendant]
was not required to inform [name of plaintiff] of the risks.
New September 2003
Directions for Use
“Whenever appropriate, the court should instruct the jury on the defenses available
to a doctor who has failed to make the disclosure required by law.” (Cobbs v. Grant
(1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 245 [104 Cal.Rptr. 505, 502 P.2d 1].) This instruction could be
modified to cover “informed refusal” cases by redrafting it to state, in substance,
that the information regarding the risks of refusing the test would have seriously
upset the patient.
Sources and Authority
• “A disclosure need not be made beyond that required within the medical
community when a doctor can prove by a preponderance of the evidence he
relied upon facts which would demonstrate to a reasonable man the disclosure
would have so seriously upset the patient that the patient would not have been
able to dispassionately weigh the risks of refusing to undergo the recommended
treatment.” (Cobbs, supra, 8 Cal.3d at p. 246.)
• This defense is considered a “justification.” Justification for failure to disclose is
an affirmative defense on which the defendant has the burden of proof. (Mathis
v. Morrissey (1992) 11 Cal.App.4th 332, 347, fn. 9 [13 Cal.Rptr.2d 819].)
Secondary Sources
5 Witkin, Summary of California Law (11th ed. 2017) Torts, §§ 466, 469
California Tort Guide (Cont.Ed.Bar 3d ed.) § 9.11
3 Levy et al., California Torts, Ch. 31, Liability of Physicians and Other Medical
Practitioners, § 31.14 (Matthew Bender)
36 California Forms of Pleading and Practice, Ch. 415, Physicians: Medical
Malpractice, § 415.13 (Matthew Bender)
17 California Points and Authorities, Ch. 175, Physicians and Surgeons (Matthew
487
Copyright Judicial Council of California
Bender)
33 California Legal Forms, Ch. 104, Health Care Transactions, Consents, and
Directives, § 104.11 (Matthew Bender)
CACI No. 553 MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE
488
Copyright Judicial Council of California

© Judicial Council of California.