From our private database of 31,100+ case briefs...
Shinal v. Toms
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
162 A.3d 429 (2017)
Megan Shinal (plaintiff) had a nonmalignant brain tumor partially removed during surgery. The tumor regrew over the following years until it extended into Shinal’s vital brain structures and would have threatened her life if left untreated. Shinal met with Dr. Toms (defendant) to discuss surgical options, and Toms recommended an aggressive approach to remove the tumor entirely. Toms recalled discussing with Shinal the risk of damage to her carotid artery and optic nerve as a result of the aggressive approach. Shinal decided to undergo surgery but did not make a final choice about the method, i.e., aggressive or not. Shinal had a telephone conversation with Toms’s physician assistant about three weeks later to ask about possible scarring and the need for radiation. Shinal met with Toms’s physician assistant a month after that at the neurological center. Toms’s physician assistant provided information about the surgery and Shinal signed an informed-consent form for the aggressive approach. During the surgery, Toms perforated Shinal’s carotid artery and caused her hemorrhage, stroke, brain injury, and partial blindness. Shinal brought a medical-malpractice action against Toms in the trial court and claimed that Toms did not obtain her informed consent for the aggressive surgery as required by Pennsylvania statute. The trial court allowed the jury to consider information provided to Shinal by Toms’s physician assistant to assess whether Toms got Shinal’s informed consent to the surgery. The jury returned a verdict in favor of Toms. Shinal moved for posttrial relief and asserted that the trial court improperly instructed the jury to consider information communicated to Shinal by Toms’s physician assistant to determine whether Toms properly obtained Shinal’s informed consent. The trial court denied Shinal’s motion for posttrial relief. The appeals court affirmed the trial court’s decision. Shinal appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Wecht, 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 557,000 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 557,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 31,100 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.