Blakesley v. Wolford

Pennsylvanian Terri Blakesley (plaintiff) suffered from nerve damage, which caused her tongue discomfort. Blakesley consulted with Texas-based surgeon Larry Wolford (defendant) while Wolford was visiting Pennsylvania. Wolford suggested an operation in which Wolford would replace the damaged nerve in Blakesley’s tongue with a graft from a nerve below her ear. Blakesley wanted Wolford to perform the operation in Pennsylvania, but Wolford said he could do the surgery only in Texas. The day before the Texas surgery, at Wolford’s Texas office, Wolford essentially repeated what he told Blakesley in Pennsylvania. During the surgery, Wolford used a different donor nerve from Blakesley’s neck. Blakeseley’s tongue discomfort remained after the surgery, along with new and unpleasant sensations. Blakesley sued Wolford in federal court in Pennsylvania pursuant to the court’s diversity jurisdiction, alleging that Wolford did not obtain her informed consent because he did not disclose that he might use an alternative donor nerve. Blakesley filed an in limine motion asking the court to apply Pennsylvania law to the substantive issues in the case. Wolford responded that Texas law should govern substantive issues. The choice of law was important because Pennsylvania required a doctor to disclose all information the doctor knew (or should have known) that a reasonable patient would deem significant in deciding whether to grant consent, whereas Texas required far less disclosure. Moreover, Texas capped doctors’ malpractice liabilities at $500,000, plus past and future medical expenses; Pennsylvania had no such cap. The district court ruled that Pennsylvania law governed because (1) Blakesley suffered the effects of her injury in Pennsylvania and (2) Wolford, while in Pennsylvania, invited Blakesley to go to Texas for the surgery. After the jury awarded Blakesley $800,000 in damages, Wolford appealed.