Cited by

Opinions in Louisiana that cite Karl J. Pizzalotto, MD, Ltd. v. Wilson, 437 So. 2d 859.

30 citing documents.

Allen Dehart v. Bruce A. Jones, M. D. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2020
See Thibodeaux v. Jurgelsky, 2004-2004 (La.3/11/05), ( (discussing the cause of action for battery); LaCaze v. Collier, 434 $o0.2d 1039 (La.1983) (discussing the cause of action for lack of informed consent); and Gary L. Boland, The Doctrine of Lack of Consent and Lack of Informed Consent in Medical Procedure in Louisiana, 45 La.L.Rev.
Snider v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance 130 So. 3d 922 La. 2013
See Thibodeaux v. Jurgelsky, 2004-2004 (La.3/11/05), ( (discussing the cause of action for battery); (discussing the cause of action for lack of informed consent); and Gary L. Boland, The Doctrine of Lack of Consent and Lack of Informed Consent in Medical Procedure in Louisiana, 45 La.L.Rev.
James Jefferson Price, IV v. Erbe USA, Inc. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
the Louisiana Supreme Court established the rule that a physician may not act beyond his patient’s authorization, except when a situation seriously threatens the health or life of the patient.
Price v. ERBE USA, INC. 42 So. 3d 985 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2010
John Maybrier v. Louisiana Medical Mutual ins.co. La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 2009
the Louisiana Supreme Court established the rule that a physician may not act beyond his patient’s authorization, except when a situation seriously threatens the health or life of the patient.
Maybrier v. Louisiana Medical Mutual Insurance 12 So. 3d 1115 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2009
the Louisiana Supreme Court established the rule that a physician may not act beyond his patient’s authorization, except when a situation seriously threatens the health or life of the patient.
Thibodeaux v. Jurgelsky 898 So. 2d 299 La. 2005
The elements of the causes of action involving patient consent brought pursuant to the Uniform Consent Law were considered in three 1983 Louisiana Supreme Court decisions: (lack of informed consent); (battery); (Dennis, J., concurring, ) (lack of informed consent).
Fortier v. Dehne 804 So. 2d 819 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 2001
See, e.g., Karl J. Pizzalotto, M.D., (on rehearing).
Banks v. Wright 721 So. 2d 1063 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1998
In Lugenbuhl v. Dowling, 96-1575 (La.10/10/97); , from which we quote at length, the Louisiana Supreme Court had occasion to address the question of proceeding under a theory of medical battery: This court [], concluding that the doctor removed the patient's reproductive organs without obtaining her implied or expressed consent to that operation, held that the doctor committed a battery and remanded the case to the court of appeal to determine the damages due for that tort.
In Re Medical Review Panel for Claim of Larche 714 So. 2d 56 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1998
Lugenbuhl v. Dowling 701 So. 2d 447 La. 1997
In Karl J. Pizzalotto, M.D., the doctor, after conservatively treating the patient's lower abdominal pain, prescribed exploratory abdominal surgery (laparotomy) to determine the cause of the pain.
Niklaus v. Bellina 696 So. 2d 120 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1997
Baham v. MED. CTR. OF LA AT NEW ORLEANS 674 So. 2d 458 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1996
Distinguished Yahn v. Folse 639 So. 2d 261 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1994
Because Mr. Yahn gave his actual consent, in which there was no consent, actual or informed, to a surgical procedure.
Riser v. AMERICAN MEDICAL INTERN., INC. 620 So. 2d 372 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1993
Karl J. Pizzalotto, M.D., (La.
Roberson v. Provident House 576 So. 2d 992 La. 1991
As recognized by this court in Pizzalotto, M.D., a surgeon commits a battery on his patient when he undertakes a particular surgical procedure without the consent of the patient unless there is an emergency situation.
Wright v. Hirsch 572 So. 2d 783 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Karl J. Pizzalotto, M.D., on remand (La.
Fricke v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corp. 571 So. 2d 130 La. 1990
Karl J. Pizzalotto, M.D., (La.App.
Roberson v. Provident House 559 So. 2d 838 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1990
Karl J. Pizzalotto, M.D.
Guin v. Sison 552 So. 2d 60 La. Ct. App. 3d Cir. 1989
our Supreme Court established the rule that a physician may not act beyond his patient's authorization, except when a situation seriously threatens the health or life of the patient.
Kersh v. Heffner 542 So. 2d 1118 La. Ct. App. 5th Cir. 1989
Karl J. Pizzalotto, M.D., (La.App.
Vines v. Colon 542 So. 2d 560 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1989
-63 (La.1983) the Supreme Court explained battery in a malpractice setting: The doctrine of consent to medical treatment is rooted in the idea that a person has the right to make major decisions regarding his own body, [citation omitted].
Douget v. Touro Infirmary 537 So. 2d 251 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
Plaintiffs' lack of consent-battery theory, sounds in intentional tort and is a separate theory of action from lack of informed consent, which sounds in negligence.
Hondroulis v. Schuhmacher 531 So. 2d 450 La. 1988
[8] Since the operation was that named in the consent form, this is a negligence action, rather than the battery involved in Karl J. Pizzalotto, M.D.
Hondroulis v. Schuhmacher 521 So. 2d 534 La. Ct. App. 4th Cir. 1988
citing Justice Cardozo in Schloendorff v. Society of New York Hospitals, 211 N.Y.
Cudges v. Our Lady of Lourdes Hospital 514 So. 2d 195 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1987
Having so decided, the trial court found that an intentional tort may have been committed, apparently relying on the case of Karl J. Pizzalotto, M.D., (La.
Caudle v. Betts 512 So. 2d 389 La. 1987
Karl J. Pizzalotto, M.D., (La.App.
Cage v. Wood 484 So. 2d 850 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1986
and cases cited therein.
Stafford v. Louisiana State University 448 So. 2d 852 La. Ct. App. 2d Cir. 1984
[5] : The doctrine of consent to medical treatment is rooted in the idea that a person has the right to make major decisions regarding his own body.
Karl J. Pizzalotto, MD, Ltd. v. Wilson 444 So. 2d 143 La. Ct. App. 1st Cir. 1983