Macy v. Blatchford
Oregon Supreme Court
8 P.3d 204 (2000)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
Danita Macy (plaintiff) was a patient of Dr. Douglas Blatchford (defendant). In June 1992, Blatchford removed Danita’s left ovary and fallopian tube following Danita’s complaints about pelvic pain. Danita continued to suffer pelvic pain and agreed to Blatchford’s suggestion to remove her right ovary, her fallopian tube, and her uterus. Blatchford performed the surgery in August 1992. Following this surgery, Danita continued to suffer from pelvic pain and also began suffering from pain in her side and her back. Danita consulted another physician, who determined that Danita’s left ureter was obstructed, believing that Blatchford had inadvertently stapled Danita’s ureter during the June 1992 surgery. Danita sued Blatchford for negligence in stapling her ureter. Danita also alleged that Blatchford had been negligent in recommending the August 1992 surgery and that Blatchford had failed to obtain Danita’s informed consent for the August 1992 surgery by neglecting to advise her of other medical options. Danita submitted a motion to amend her complaint to include an allegation that Blatchford had been negligent in continuing to treat Danita after Blatchford and Danita entered into a sexual relationship. The trial court excluded evidence of the sexual relationship, and the court of appeals agreed. Danita appealed, arguing that the sexual relationship was relevant to her allegation that Blatchford had been negligent in recommending that Danita undergo the August 1992 surgery and to the allegation that Blatchford had failed to obtain informed consent.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Gillette, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,400 briefs, keyed to 994 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.