Cobbs v. Grant (1972), Essay Example

The case of Ralph Cobbs, plaintiff and respondent, v. Dudley F.P. Grant, defendant and an appellant, was held in the Supreme Court of California on October 7, 1972. Cobbs v. Grant discusses the decision of a medical malpractice case that was heard to determine whether the physician had demonstrated negligence. The case discusses when a medical professional has the ability to bypass the need to provide a patient with informed consent. Conventionally, the doctor is required to make medical decisions for the patient without their consent if the patients are unable to speak for themselves. The jury found that evidence was not sufficient in determining that the defendant was negligent during his operation. However, the judgement was reversed and a new trial called for because it was unclear as to which of the two proposed accusations the jury believed the defendant was innocent of. Therefore, the decision of the trial provided recommendations regarding the application of informed consent in the state of California.

The plaintiff was admitted to the hospital in 1964 for the treatment of a duodenal ulcer. The plaintiff claims that while Dr. Grant had informed him of the surgical process, he was not informed of any of the complications that could occur as a consequence of the surgery. Afterwards, Dr. Grant had performed the surgery which successfully detected the existence of an ulcer. After the surgery was completed, it appeared that the ulcer had disappeared and the plaintiff was discharged from the hospital. However, the plaintiff had begun experiencing strong abdominal pain and after consulting his regular physician, was told to return to Dr. Grant for an examination. Upon examination, Dr. Grant found that there was internal bleeding at the original surgical site and decided to remove the spleen of the patient, which was indicated and can typically be done without any side effects. After this second surgery, the plaintiff reported more pain in the area. It was then found that a new ulcer developed, and the physician decided to operate again, but the internal bleeding issue occurred again shortly after. At this point, the plaintiff brought legal action against Dr. Grant.

Dr. Grant rebutted that there is no evidence against him for negligence. He claims that he provided the patient with the information he needed to know and made the appropriate medical decision in each situation. Several experts were consulted in the trial in defense of Dr. Grant, but no witnesses were provided by the plaintiff. All three experts agree that there was no malpractice issue because the procedures conducted by Dr. Grant demonstrated evidence of due care. The defendant claimed that since the jury did not consist of medical professionals with the training to understand the definition of the evidenced due care that the court should then instead dismiss the case as a consequence of unanimous agreement of three medical professionals. Thus, the claim was that the jury was unable to substitute the findings of the professionals and find negligence.

On the other hand, the plaintiff claimed that it would be possible for the jury to reasonably find a claim that differs from that of the defendant and witness experts. This is because he believed that this issue is resolvable on the basis of common knowledge. As such, the plaintiff trusted the jury to understand when a medical mistake has been made. As evidence, an x-ray of the plaintiff’s duodenum was taken, which detected irritability of the organ in addition to a small ulcer. The court found that only medical experts would be capable of understanding the meaning of these results. In addition, there was evidence in the plaintiff’s medical records indicating the need for repeated surgery to remove the ulcer to avoid internal bleeding.

It was found that the plaintiff’s case for negligence was unfounded and that the jury was unable to make a decision because medical experts were needed in order to fully understand the relevance of the evidence presented. Furthermore, the court ruled that there is a difference between negligence and inherent risks of receiving a particular operation. The plaintiff claimed that because the defendant is a medical professional, he can interpret the medical evidence in a manner that would be more suitable for his defense in this case. It was found that there was not enough evidence provided in this case in order to hear a jury verdict pertaining to the negligence of the defendant both prior to and during the operation. Ultimately, since a jury decision was not deemed possible, it was necessary for this case to be scheduled at a later date.

In this case, Dr. Grant had the best argument which was demonstrated by the court’s decision to not allow the jury, due to a lack of understanding of the medical evidence presented, come to a verdict. The defendant’s case was better because unlike the plaintiff, he provided a series of evidence which included medical records and examination data in addition to the testimony of two other medical professionals in the field. The defendant strategically provided his case in a manner that demonstrated that he was not negligent and all of the surgeries and treatment options he performed were indicated by common practice in the field (Hall et al., 2013). This was supported by the use of testimonies and physical evidence. This style of defense also demonstrated that the court was unable to adequately rule on this decision as a consequence of the jury’s inability to fully understand the medical information that were being presented to them.

Dr. Grant’s argument was reasonable because he believed that both the plaintiff and the jury were unable to fully understand the medical rationale behind his decisions regarding the duodenum ulcer surgery. He convinced the court that the jury would not be able to come to a reasonable verdict on this case due to a lack of understanding of the evidence. As a whole, the case was dismissed and rescheduled because not enough usable evidence was presented. While the plaintiff’s argument was reasonable, he was not able to demonstrate any evidence with the exception of an x-ray that neither he nor members of the court would be in a reasonable place to understand. On the other hand, the plaintiff’s case was effective because he claimed that bias was present in the favor of the defendant due to his understanding of the medical profession. As a consequence, he is uniquely able to interpret the medical evidence in a manner that supports his argument. In addition, he claimed that the jury would be able to rule on this case because the finding of negligence is based on common sense; since the defendant needed to repeatedly conduct surgery and treatment on the plaintiff, there must have been something he was doing wrong.

Ultimately, this case reminds us that it is important to have neutral individuals present in the court of law to interpret the meaning of information that requires specialized knowledge. A normal jury is suitable to hear this case provided that the meaning of the evidence can be made known to them. This case worked in the favor of the defendant because he was able to demonstrate this, which was a plausible finding by the court.

References

Cobbs v. Grant (1972)

Hall, Mark; Bobinski, Mary; Orentlicher, David. (2013). Medical Liability and Treatment Relationships Third Edition. MD: Wolters Kluwer.