Duncan v. Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd.

Martha Duncan (plaintiff) went to Scottsdale Medical Imaging, Ltd. (Scottsdale) (defendant) for a magnetic-resonance-imaging (MRI) exam. Duncan explained to nurses both by phone and in person upon arrival on the day of the exam that due to her history of allergic reactions to some medications, she did not consent to any synthetic medication. Upon arrival at Scottsdale, Duncan inquired of nurse Gary Fink what sedative would be used. Fink indicated that a synthetic drug, fentanyl, would be administered. Duncan categorically refused to take fentanyl and stated that she consented only to an injection of either morphine or Demerol. Duncan stated this multiple times and even asked that either her doctor be contacted to discuss the appropriate medicine or that the MRI be scheduled for some other time. Duncan only agreed to undergo the MRI after Fink assured her that she would receive morphine instead of fentanyl. However, contrary to Duncan’s express consent, Fink administered fentanyl without her knowledge. Duncan suffered significant complications from receiving fentanyl. Duncan sued Scottsdale and Hospital Radiologists, Ltd. (defendant) for battery, among other claims. Duncan sought summary judgment, asking a trial court to allow her battery claim to go forward outside of the state’s medical malpractice act without Duncan having to produce an expert to testify that Scottsdale’s conduct fell beneath the relevant standard of care and that this failure caused Duncan’s harm. Scottsdale cross-moved for summary judgment on Duncan’s battery claim. A trial court granted Scottsdale’s motion and dismissed Duncan’s battery claim. An appellate court affirmed because Duncan had consented to receiving an injection. The Arizona Supreme Court considered whether administering a medication to a patient after the patient had expressly withheld consent to receive that drug qualified as a battery.