Nevada Informed Consent May be Implied

The issue of informed consent frequently arises in the context of medical malpractice cases.

I’m used to sitting in depositions in which a medical malpractice defense attorney will hand my client’s informed consent over to my client and then proceed with a series of questions intended to confuse. Malpractice victims obviously do not consent to allow a doctor to commit malpractice, but defense attorneys like to use informed consents against a plaintiff in any way possible.

In Nevada, our Supreme Court recently clarified several informed consent issues in the context of a chiropractic malpractice case.

In Bronneke v. Rutherford, 120 Nev. 230, 89 P.3d 40 (2004), the Court held that consent to treatment may
be express or implied. By seeking chiropractic treatment, a plaintiff’s consent to the particular technique may be

implied because as a practical matter, health professionals cannot be required to obtain express consent before each touch or test they perform on a patient.

If you are a malpractice victim, ensure that you are properly prepared by counsel with respect to questions that may arise at deposition, and at trial, regarding informed consent.