Doctors Hospital of Augusta v. Alicea
Georgia Supreme Court
788 S.E.2d 392 (2016)
Bucilla Stephenson executed an advance directive designating her daughter, Jacqueline Alicea (plaintiff) as her healthcare agent. The directive gave Alicea power to make healthcare decisions for Stephenson, in accordance with Stephenson’s wishes. Stephenson specifically told Alicea that she did not want to rely on a machine to live, including a ventilator for breathing. Several years later, Stephenson was admitted to Doctors Hospital of Augusta (hospital) (defendant). Exams showed that Stephenson was suffering from a number of severe ailments. Alicea gave the hospital Stephenson’s advance directive. Alicea also gave the hospital her contact information. One day, a doctor, who had not read the advance directive, called Alicea and requested her consent for a procedure the doctor wanted to perform on Stephenson. The doctor did not tell Alicea that the procedure would require intubation and the use of a ventilator. Alicea agreed to the procedure, not knowing that a ventilator would be used. The procedure was performed. Two days later, Stephenson was experiencing respiratory issues, and the doctor again ordered the use of a ventilator. Alicea was not contacted. Alicea’s husband stopped by the hospital and saw Stephenson on the ventilator. The husband called Alicea, who arrived at the hospital and informed the doctor that he had acted against Stephenson’s advance directive. The doctor told Alicea that he could either take Stephenson off of the ventilator, in which case she would suffocate and die, or perform another surgery to help Stephenson. Alicea consented to the procedure, as well as other procedures recommended by the hospital staff. When Stephenson’s health continued to fail, Alecia authorized the removal of the ventilator. Stephenson died three days later. Alecia filed a complaint against the hospital, alleging that hospital staff had subjected Stephenson to unnecessary medical procedures in violation of her advance directive and the directions of Alecia. The hospital contended that it was immune from liability under state law. The case eventually made its way to the state supreme court.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Nahmias, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 724,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 724,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,600 briefs, keyed to 983 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.