How To Prove A California Risks of Nontreatment Claim

 

 

In California, a claim of Risks of Nontreatment is defined as:

Physicians are legally required to disclose the risks or problems a patient might experience if they do not undergo a recommended treatment, test, or procedure.

It simply means:

Doctors must warn patients of problems that could result from leaving a medical condition untreated.

There are 4 elements of the claim:

• Element 1. The defendant did not perform a specific medical procedure on plaintiff. The defendant failed to carry out a particular medical procedure that the plaintiff needed, which is a key part of proving a claim about the dangers of not receiving treatment.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff’s medical records indicate that the specific procedure was never documented as performed by the defendant.
  * Witness statements confirm that the defendant was not present during the time the procedure was allegedly conducted.
  * The plaintiff received a different treatment from another healthcare provider shortly after the scheduled procedure date.
  * The defendant’s billing records do not include any charges related to the specific procedure in question.
  * The plaintiff expressed concerns about the procedure not being performed during a follow-up appointment with the defendant.

• Element 2. The defendant did not disclose to plaintiff the important potential risks of refusing the procedure. The defendant failed to inform the plaintiff about the significant dangers that could arise from not undergoing the medical procedure, which is a key factor in a claim regarding the risks associated with choosing not to receive treatment.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The defendant failed to inform the plaintiff about the possibility of worsening health conditions if the procedure was not performed.
  * The defendant did not discuss the potential for increased pain and suffering associated with refusing the recommended treatment.
  * The defendant neglected to explain the likelihood of complications arising from the plaintiff’s existing condition without the procedure.
  * The defendant did not provide information about alternative treatments that could mitigate risks if the procedure was declined.
  * The defendant’s communication did not include the statistical risks associated with nontreatment, leaving the plaintiff uninformed.

• Element 3. A reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have agreed to the medical procedure if that person had been adequately informed about the risks. If a person in the plaintiff’s situation had been properly informed about the risks involved, they would likely have chosen to go through with the medical procedure instead of avoiding it, which is a key point in a claim about the dangers of not receiving treatment.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff was informed of the potential benefits of the medical procedure, which included a significant improvement in their condition.
  * Medical literature indicates that the risks associated with the procedure are generally considered acceptable compared to the potential consequences of nontreatment.
  * The plaintiff’s medical history suggested that without the procedure, their condition would likely worsen, leading to more severe health issues.
  * A majority of patients in similar situations have chosen to undergo the procedure after being informed of the risks involved.
  * The healthcare provider presented the risks in a clear and understandable manner, allowing the plaintiff to make an informed decision.

• Element 4. The plaintiff was harmed by the failure to have the procedure performed. The plaintiff suffered negative consequences because the necessary medical procedure was not done, showing that their health or well-being was directly affected by the decision not to treat them.
  

  Facts that might support this element look like:

  * The plaintiff experienced a significant worsening of their medical condition due to the absence of the recommended procedure.
  * The delay in performing the procedure resulted in the plaintiff requiring more extensive and costly treatment later on.
  * The plaintiff suffered from increased pain and suffering as a direct result of not having the procedure performed in a timely manner.
  * The plaintiff’s quality of life diminished significantly due to the complications arising from the failure to perform the procedure.
  * Medical records indicate that the plaintiff’s prognosis would have been substantially better had the procedure been conducted as advised.

^{(See California Civil Jury Instructions (CACI), No. 535. Truman v. Thomas, 611 P. 2d 902 – Cal: Supreme Court 1980.)}
If you’re in court without a lawyer and plan to assert a claim of Risks of Nontreatment, having a Personal Practice of Law at Courtroom5 is essential. You’ll need to make informed decisions about what to file at each phase of your case and prepare legal documents supported by thorough legal research and a strong analysis of the facts. Equip yourself with the tools and knowledge to effectively navigate your legal journey.

Prove Your CA Risks of Nontreatment Claim

U.S. Civil Cases Only