Perin V. Hayne Case Study

In 1973, the ruling of Perin v. Hayne in the district court system regarding the verdict of malpractice action was appealed to the supreme court of Iowa. The plaintiff, Ilene Perin underwent surgery to address an issue, but the attending physician performed a slightly different procedure then what was initially intended. Despite relieving the patient of her prior ailment, the outcome of the surgery resulted in the creation of another ailment. In attempt to describe what substantial difference encompasses in healthcare, several cases and perspectives will be reviewed, to better define such delineation.

Perin v. Hayne
Ilene Perin, the plaintiff, was a patient who suffered from several associated issues and pains, in which the cause was determined to be two protruding cervical discs in her neck. Dr. Robert Hayne, the defendant and attending neurosurgeon, suggested the fusion of the two cervical discs would subside the pain and other related issues in her neck, back, right arm, and extremities. Upon the conclusion of a successful bone fusion …show more content…
Grant, to evaluate and compare the distinction between the two cases. Cobbs underwent surgery for a stomach ulcer, but was not informed of the potential risk involved, which resulted in two more additional surgeries and won the case upon the basis of battery (Cobbs v. Grant, 1972). In another case, Berkey v. Anderson, the issues of surrounded informed consent and being made aware of the seriousness of the potential risks of the myelogram procedure. The court agreed with the appellant, in which a physician's duty to disclose is not governed by the standard practice of the physicians' community, but is a duty imposed by law which governs his conduct in the same manner as others in a similar fiduciary relationship (Berkey v. Anderson, 1969, para 45). The impact of full disclosure can be seem within the two cases mentioned and it relevance to Perin v.