Warning

Info

Table of Contents
Lan, SLS '24 |

0 0

Back to briefs

Matthies v. Mastromonaco

(1999)

Supreme Court of New Jersey - 160 N.J. 26

tl;dr:

Elderly woman with a broken hip was prescribed bed rest instead of surgery and sued saying she didn't give informed consent; Court holds that informed consent is required even for noninvasive treatments.

Video Summary

ICRAIssue, Conclusion, Rule, Analysis for Matthies v. Mastromonaco

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Matthies v. Mastromonaco case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

Facts & HoldingMatthies v. Mastromonaco case brief facts & holding

Facts:81-year-old Plaintiff fell in her apartment and broke her hip....

Holding:The NJ Supreme Court remanded the case for a new...

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Matthies v. Mastromonaco case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

DeepDiveHighlight a legal term to see the definition

Font size -+
Matthies v. Mastromonaco | Case Brief DeepDive
Majority opinion, author: POLLOCK, J.
Level 1
Click below 👇 to DeepDive

The case involves whether a physician must obtain informed consent from a patient before implementing a non-surgical treatment and whether the physician should discuss medically reasonable alternative courses of treatment that they do not recommend. The court held that informed consent applies even for non-invasive treatments, and the physician must explain medically reasonable invasive and non-invasive alternatives, including the risks and likely outcomes of those alternatives, even when the chosen course is non-invasive. The Appellate Division reversed the Law Division's ruling that a patient cannot sue a physician for breach of the duty of informed consent for non-invasive procedures. The Supreme Court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision. The case involves an 81-year-old woman who fell and fractured her right hip, and the orthopedic surgeon decided against pinning her hip, a procedure that would have involved inserting four steel screws. The bed-rest treatment prescribed by the physician was deemed inappropriate by the patient's expert, and the patient suffered a bad outcome resulting in permanent disability. The trial court allowed Dr. Mastromonaco to testify that he had discussed surgical options with Matthies, but a question remained for the jury as to whether Dr. Mastromonaco had consulted with Matthies or her family about the possibility of surgery. The Appellate Division reversed the trial court's decision, stating that New Jersey's informed consent doctrine applies to both invasive and noninvasive procedures. The court found that Dr. Mastromonaco should have explained the risks of bed rest and his reasons for recommending it as a course of treatment to Matthies. The court also found that Dr. Mastromonaco's decision to treat Matthies conservatively was not his to make. The Appellate Division concluded that the trial court's restriction on the presentation of evidence on Matthies's informed consent claim affected her medical malpractice claim, and remanded for a new trial on both issues.

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua.

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Matthies v. Mastromonaco case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

🤯 High points 🤯Key points contributed by students on LSD

LSD+ exclusive

This content is exclusively for LSD+ users.

Sign up for LSD+ for full access to the Matthies v. Mastromonaco case brief summary.

Enjoy unlimited access with our 14-day free trial.

LSD+ Case Briefs

Features

  • DeepDive for detailed case analysis
  • Over 50,000 existing case briefs
  • Instant briefs for another 6,000,000 cases
  • Highlight dictionary for legal term definitions
  • Social learning with chat and high points

Over 50,000 Cases Briefed

LSD+ gives you access to over 50,000 case briefs, more than anyone else. Be the first to email us the website of a case brief product that offers you more case briefs and we'll give you a free year of LSD+.

14-Day Free Trial

Unlimited access. Read as much content as you want during your trial with no device limitations. Cancel any time during your trial and keep access for the full 14 days.

Integrated Legal Dictionary

Lawyers and judges love to use big words. And Latin, for some reason.

Highlight a legal term in LSD Briefs and get an instant, plain English definition. Try highlighting contract or specific performance. No need to search or read through a list of definitions, simply highlight the words you don’t know and our LSDefine integration will instantly give you a definition to any of over 30,000 legal terms.

DeepDive

DeepDive allows you to explore legal cases like never before. DeepDive offers multiple levels of case summaries, which empowers you to quickly and easily find the information you need to stay on top of readings. Easily navigate through summary levels and click on any text to get more detail, all the way down to the original legal case text.

Brief anything. Instantly.

Our proprietary state-of-the-art system can instantly brief over 6,000,000 US cases. That means we can probably brief that case that your professor assigned last night when she sent you a poorly scanned pdf and told you to read every third paragraph. Or maybe she uploaded it to Canvas and didn’t really tell you to read it, but you know you probably should. Tenure does wild things to good people.

Social Learning with Chat and High Points

Study groups are a great way to learn and explore a case. LSD has chat rooms for each case to let you ask questions across the community and hear what other students struggled with and how they put it all together. Learn the key points of every case from other LSD+ users and share your knowledge with LSD High Points.

Real-Time Brief Feedback

Don’t settle for mistakes in briefs that have been there for 10 years and never fixed. Find an issue or something missing from a brief? Down vote and we will make improvements. All of our case brief editors graduated from from T14 law schools.

Matthies v. Mastromonaco

Chat for Matthies v. Mastromonaco
brief-394
👍 Chat vibe: 0 👎
Help us make LSD better!
Tell us what's important to you
LSD+ is ad-free, with DMs, discounts, case briefs & more.