Jandre v. Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund

813 N.W.2d 627 (2012)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Jandre v. Wisconsin Injured Patients and Families Compensation Fund

Wisconsin Supreme Court
813 N.W.2d 627 (2012)

Facts

On June 13, 2003, Thomas Jandre (plaintiff) began experiencing slurred speech, drooping on one side of his face, dizziness, and weakness in his legs. At the emergency room, Jandre was evaluated by Dr. Therese Bullis (defendant). Bullis’s differential diagnosis included Bell’s palsy, ischemic stroke, and other ailments. Bullis listened to Jandre’s blood flow with a stethoscope to determine whether Jandre had suffered an ischemic ministroke caused by blockage in the carotid arteries. Later, Bullis admitted that this was a poor method of detecting ischemic stroke because listening could not detect an almost complete arterial blockage. Bullis did not order a carotid ultrasound, a reliable, noninvasive diagnostic technique. Jandre’s symptoms were typical of ischemic stroke. Because Jandre’s symptoms came on suddenly, they were not typical of Bell’s palsy. Bullis diagnosed Jandre with Bell’s palsy. Bullis did not tell Jandre that his symptoms were consistent with ischemic stroke, that she had used a poor method of detecting ischemic stroke, that she could have ordered a more reliable carotid ultrasound, or that a ministroke could be followed by a full-blown stroke. On June 24, 2003, Jandre suffered a full-blown ischemic stroke. An ultrasound showed that one of Jandre’s arteries was 95 percent blocked. Jandre’s cognitive and physical abilities were impaired. Jandre sued Bullis under Wisconsin’s malpractice law for negligent diagnosis and for failure to provide disclosures needed to satisfy Wisconsin’s informed-consent law, § 448.30. Section 448.30 described physicians’ duties to give patients information on alternate modes of treatment. At trial, after hearing conflicting expert testimony, the jury found that Bullis’s diagnosis of Bell’s palsy was not negligent but that Bullis was negligent in failing to satisfy the informed-consent law. The court of appeals affirmed. On appeal to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, Bullis argued that she had no duty to inform Jandre of options unrelated to her diagnosis and that the plain language of § 448.30 meant that it applied only to treatment, not diagnosis.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Abrahamson, C.J.)

Concurrence (Prosser, J.)

Dissent (Roggensack, J.)

What to do next…

  1. 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 734,000 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
  2. 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 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 734,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership