What is informed consent in California medical care?

A physician's duty to disclose the risks, benefits, and alternatives that a reasonable patient would need to make an intelligent decision about treatment. The California Supreme Court set that patient-centered standard in Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229; nondisclosure of a material risk that then occurs can create liability even for a well-performed procedure.

California measures informed consent from the patient's side of the conversation. Under Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, a physician must disclose the information a reasonable person in the patient's position would want (the significant risks of the proposed treatment, the alternatives including doing nothing, and their risks), rather than merely what other doctors customarily say. Performing a procedure competently does not cure a consent failure: if an undisclosed material risk materializes, the physician can be liable, though the patient must also show a reasonable person, properly informed, would have declined the treatment. Exceptions cover genuine emergencies and risks commonly understood. Proceeding with no consent at all, or with a substantially different procedure than authorized, can be battery rather than negligence, a distinction with its own limitations rules. Signed consent forms are evidence of disclosure, not immunity. Claims follow the malpractice deadlines of Code of Civil Procedure section 340.5 and the MICRA cap of Civil Code section 3333.2.

Authority: Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229