The court ruled that the Plaintiff’s lack of informed consent claim against the Defendant doctor lacked the specificity required to establish that the doctor not only provided her with negligent treatment but also knowingly provided her with a different treatment than had been discussed with the Plaintiff.
The court noted that a claim for informed consent is treated as a “technical battery” under Pennsylvania law due to an unwanted testing.
Since the court found that the Plaintiff’s lack of consent/negligence claim was not properly pled, the court did not delve into the validity of the claim for punitive damages.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Dec. 22, 2020).