Health Law

Schaefer v. Herber — Study Notes

Schaefer v. Herber, 789 F.3d 456 (9th Cir. 2023)

Study notes for Schaefer v. Herber: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.

Failure to disclose specific risks of a novel surgical technique constitutes a breach of the informed consent doctrine.
Professor Notes

In Schaefer v. Herber, the court emphasized the critical importance of informed consent in healthcare, particularly when a physician uses novel techniques. The failure to disclose specific risks associated with a new surgical method can undermine the patient's autonomy and right to make informed decisions about their medical care. This case serves as a cautionary tale for physicians about the importance of transparency and comprehensive communication regarding the potential risks and benefits of treatment options, highlighting that standard procedural information may not suffice when the method involves novel risks.

Professors will likely point out how this case reinforces the legal standard of informed consent and the need for healthcare providers to ensure patients are fully informed. It also raises important questions about what constitutes material information in the context of clinical decision-making, thereby influencing standard practices in healthcare communications moving forward.

Cold Call Prep
  1. 1Explain the concept of informed consent and its relevance in this case.
  2. 2What specific risks should have been disclosed by Dr. Herber?
  3. 3Discuss how the court determined what constitutes 'material' information for patients.
  4. 4How does this case relate to traditional informed consent standards?
  5. 5What implications does this case have for future medical practices involving novel techniques?
  6. 6Identify potential arguments a physician could make in defending against informed consent claims.
  7. 7Discuss the ethical considerations surrounding the use of novel surgical techniques.
Mnemonic Device

NOVA: Novel risks, Oversight, Value of information, Autonomy.

Distinguish From
CaseDistinction
Canterbury v. SpenceIn Canterbury, the patient was not informed of any risks, while Schaefer specifically addresses the risks associated with a new technique.
Smith v. McGowanSmith focused on established surgical procedures and the sufficiency of information given, whereas Schaefer deals explicitly with novel methods requiring thorough risk disclosure.
Policy Arguments

For the Rule

Mandating full disclosure of risks promotes patient safety and autonomy, fostering trust in the physician-patient relationship.

Against the Rule

Strict liability for nondisclosure may lead to defensive medicine practices, resulting in healthcare providers becoming overly cautious and potentially limiting patient access to innovative treatments.

Class Discussion Points
  • Debate the ethical implications of using innovative surgical techniques without full disclosure.
  • Examine the balance between medical innovation and patient rights in informed consent.
  • Consider how this case might influence legislative reforms around healthcare practices concerning informed consent.
Exam Angle

This case may be featured in exams focusing on informed consent, with questions on the disclosure requirements for novel medical procedures and the implications for patient autonomy.

View Full Case Brief

Ace Your Cold Calls with Briefly

Get AI-powered case briefs, study notes, and cold call prep for every case in your casebook.