AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• The Plaintiff, Ruth E. Dills, experienced complications following a pacemaker lead extraction procedure performed by doctors at the New Mexico Heart Institute, leading to severe health issues including tricuspid valve regurgitation, atrial fibrillation, and right-sided congestive heart failure. The Plaintiff contended that she was not informed of alternative procedures to the lead extraction and that the procedure was not necessary under her condition (paras 3-5).

Procedural History

• DILLS V. N.M. HEART INST., 2016-NMCA-023, 367 P.3d 467: The district court's judgment in favor of the Defendant was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of New Mexico (para 1).

Parties' Submissions

• Plaintiff: Argued that she was not informed of alternative procedures to the pacemaker lead extraction and that the procedure was not indicated under her circumstances. She maintained that only one of the two pacemaker leads was malfunctioning and that alternative actions, such as reprogramming the pacemaker or implanting new leads without extraction, were not presented to her (paras 5).
• Defendant: Contended that the Plaintiff had been informed of treatment alternatives by Dr. Blake and that Dr. Constantin, who performed the procedure, acted based on Dr. Blake's recommendation and the Plaintiff's informed consent. The Defendant also argued that the Plaintiff indicated she did not wish to receive further information about alternatives from Dr. Constantin, as she felt comfortable proceeding based on her discussion with Dr. Blake (paras 7-8, 16).

Legal Issues

• Whether the district court correctly instructed the jury concerning the law of informed consent, specifically regarding a doctor's duty to discuss alternatives to and risks of treatment which the doctor can reasonably expect to be known to the patient (paras 6, 12).

Disposition

• The district court's judgment on the jury verdict in favor of the Defendant was affirmed (para 17).

Reasons

• The Court of Appeals, per Judge James J. Wechsler, with Judges Linda M. Vanzi and M. Monica Zamora concurring, held that the district court did not err in its jury instruction. The instruction stated that a doctor has no duty to discuss alternatives to and risks of treatment which the doctor can reasonably expect to be known to the patient. This decision was based on the evidence presented at trial, which suggested that the Plaintiff had been informed of treatment alternatives by Dr. Blake and had indicated to Dr. Constantin that she did not wish to receive further information. The court found that requiring a doctor to provide information about alternative treatments that the patient already knows or does not wish to receive again would be unreasonable. The court's reasoning embraced an approach based on the reasonableness and the particular circumstances of the doctor-patient relationship, consistent with the Supreme Court's guidance in Gerety v. Demers and the relevant jury instruction UJI 13-1104B (paras 10-16).