Master Seminal D.C. Circuit decision adopting a patient-centered, materiality-based standard for informed consent and an objective causation test. with this comprehensive case brief.
Canterbury v. Spence is the modern cornerstone of the informed consent doctrine in medical malpractice law. Rejecting a physician-centered disclosure norm tied to professional custom, the D.C. Circuit grounded the duty to inform in patient autonomy, holding that physicians must disclose the material risks a reasonable patient would consider significant in deciding whether to undergo a proposed treatment. The opinion reshaped both the content of the disclosure duty and how plaintiffs prove causation, profoundly influencing tort doctrine and clinical practice.
The court articulated a clear, workable framework: physicians must discuss material risks, alternatives (including no treatment), and the likely outcomes, subject to limited exceptions (e.g., emergencies and a narrowly confined therapeutic privilege). On causation, the court adopted an objective "prudent patient" standard, asking whether a reasonable person in the patient's position would have declined or chosen differently if properly informed. Together, these moves place patient self-determination at the center of medical decision-making and continue to guide courts, practitioners, and students in understanding informed consent.
Canterbury v. Spence, 150 U.S. App. D.C. 263, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 (1972)
Jerry Canterbury, a 19-year-old government file clerk, experienced severe back pain and consulted Dr. Spence, a neurosurgeon in Washington, D.C. Dr. Spence recommended a laminectomy to address suspected disc problems. According to Canterbury, Dr. Spence offered minimal information, assuring that the surgery was not serious and that he would be fine, without disclosing a significant risk of paralysis or serious neurological injury inherent in the procedure. Canterbury consented. Following the operation, while hospitalized and unattended, Canterbury fell from his bed and subsequently developed paralysis, which necessitated additional interventions and left lasting impairments. Canterbury sued Dr. Spence and the hospital, alleging (1) negligent performance of the surgery, (2) negligent failure to disclose material risks and alternatives (lack of informed consent), and (3) negligent post-operative care by the hospital (including failure to use appropriate safety measures to prevent a fall). The district court directed a verdict for the defendants at the close of the plaintiff's case, reasoning that Canterbury failed to offer expert testimony to establish negligence or a breach of the professional disclosure standard. Canterbury appealed.
Does a physician's duty to obtain informed consent require disclosure of risks and alternatives according to a patient-centered materiality standard rather than professional custom, and is causation in informed consent measured by an objective prudent-patient test? Additionally, may the informed consent claim and related hospital negligence claim proceed without expert testimony on a professional disclosure standard?
A physician has a duty to disclose all material information that a reasonable person in the patient's position would consider significant in deciding whether to undergo a proposed treatment. Materiality turns on the nature of the proposed intervention, its risks (including probability and severity), available alternatives (including no treatment), and the likely outcomes of those alternatives. The duty is subject to narrow exceptions: (1) emergencies requiring immediate treatment; (2) situations in which disclosure would pose a substantial detriment to the patient's total care and best interests (therapeutic privilege), proven by the physician and not based on mere fear that the patient would refuse; (3) risks that are either already known to the patient or are so obvious that further disclosure is unnecessary; and (4) instances where the patient knowingly waives or declines information. To establish causation, the plaintiff must show, under an objective standard, that a reasonable person in the patient's position would have declined or chosen differently if properly informed and that the undisclosed risk materialized and caused injury. While expert testimony may be needed to identify the existence, nature, and probability of medical risks, liability for nondisclosure is not measured by professional custom and does not require expert testimony on a physician's disclosure practices.
The D.C. Circuit adopted a patient-oriented, materiality-based standard for informed consent and an objective prudent-patient causation test. It held that expert testimony on professional disclosure custom is not necessary to establish the duty to disclose material risks. The directed verdict for Dr. Spence on the informed consent claim was reversed and remanded for trial; the directed verdict on negligent surgical performance was affirmed for lack of expert proof on surgical negligence. The directed verdict for the hospital on the post-operative negligence claim was also reversed and remanded for jury consideration.
The court grounded the disclosure duty in the patient's right of self-determination: bodily integrity entitles patients to decide what is done to them after receiving information that would be material to their choice. Measuring that duty by professional custom, the court explained, subordinates autonomy to paternalism and risks insulating nondisclosure behind the very silence the law seeks to regulate. Drawing on tort principles (and echoing reasoning akin to The T.J. Hooper's critique of custom), the court emphasized that professional usage neither defines nor excuses the legal standard of reasonable care where fundamental personal rights are at stake. The court defined materiality as information a reasonable person in the patient's position would find significant in deciding whether to consent. That encompasses the nature of the procedure, the magnitude and probability of risks (especially severe harms like paralysis), reasonable alternatives (including no treatment), and comparative risks and outcomes. The court acknowledged that medical expertise is still relevant to prove what risks exist and their likelihood, but a physician's disclosure duty is not governed by what other physicians customarily say. Limited exceptions recognize the realities of practice: emergencies, therapeutic privilege (narrowly confined to situations where disclosure would pose a substantial detriment to the patient's total care), and cases in which risks are already known or obvious or where the patient elects not to be informed. The burden is on the physician to justify nondisclosure under any exception. On causation, the court adopted an objective standard: whether a prudent person in the patient's position would have declined or chosen differently if fully informed. The court rejected a purely subjective test as too easily manipulated and inconsistent with uniform standards. Applying these principles, the court held that Canterbury's testimony and evidence about the undisclosed risk of paralysis, together with medical proof of that risk's existence and magnitude, could allow a jury to find nondisclosure of a material risk and causation. It therefore reversed the directed verdict on informed consent. By contrast, the claim of negligent surgical performance required expert testimony to establish breach of the surgical standard of care, which Canterbury lacked, so that ruling was affirmed. As to the hospital, the court concluded that a jury could assess whether ordinary care required precautions (such as bed rails or supervision) to prevent a foreseeable post-operative fall, and thus the hospital negligence claim should not have been withdrawn from the jury.
Canterbury is the foundational case in American informed consent law. It reframes the disclosure duty around patient autonomy and materiality, rather than physician custom, and sets the now-dominant objective causation test. The case clarifies that expert testimony is often needed to identify medical risks and probabilities but is not required to prove what a reasonable patient would want to know. It also delineates narrow exceptions to disclosure, cautioning against paternalistic overreach. For students, Canterbury supplies the analytic roadmap for informed consent claims: identify the material risk(s), assess the limited exceptions, analyze objective causation, and distinguish disclosure-based claims from technical malpractice that requires expert evidence on professional skill.
The court adopted a patient-centered materiality standard. A physician must disclose information that a reasonable person in the patient's position would consider significant in deciding whether to undergo the proposed treatment, including the nature of the procedure, the material risks (with their probability and severity), reasonable alternatives (including no treatment), and likely outcomes.
Not to establish the disclosure duty itself. The court rejected using professional custom to define disclosure obligations, so expert testimony about what physicians usually say is not required. However, expert testimony is commonly necessary to prove the existence and magnitude of medical risks, the nature of alternatives, and medical causation (that the undisclosed risk materialized and caused the injury).
It applies an objective test: whether a prudent, reasonable person in the patient's position would have declined or chosen a different course if properly informed. The plaintiff must also show that the undisclosed risk actually occurred and caused the injury. This avoids the manipulability of a purely subjective, hindsight-driven claim that the particular patient would have refused.
The court recognized narrow exceptions: (1) emergencies requiring immediate treatment; (2) therapeutic privilege, where disclosure would pose a substantial detriment to the patient's total care and best interests (proved by the physician and not based merely on fear of refusal); (3) risks already known or so obvious that disclosure is unnecessary; and (4) situations in which the patient knowingly waives or declines information.
No. Canterbury distinguishes disclosure-based claims from technical malpractice. While professional custom does not set the standard for disclosure, expert testimony is generally required to prove negligence in the performance of medical procedures (e.g., a breach of the surgical standard of care). In Canterbury, the directed verdict on negligent surgery was affirmed for lack of such expert evidence.
The court held that the hospital negligence claim—premised on inadequate post-operative precautions to prevent a foreseeable fall—should have gone to the jury. The issue could be evaluated under ordinary negligence principles without requiring expert testimony on professional disclosure standards, and the directed verdict for the hospital was reversed.
By shifting the focus of informed consent from professional custom to patient autonomy, Canterbury v. Spence reoriented medical malpractice law toward the interests of the person whose body and liberty are at stake. The decision specifies what must be disclosed, narrows permissible exceptions, and supplies an objective causation framework that respects both patients' decision-making and the need for administrable rules.
For law students, Canterbury provides the analytical structure for evaluating informed consent: identify the material information, test any claimed exceptions, assess objective causation, and separate disclosure issues from technical malpractice requiring expert proof. Its patient-centered approach remains the benchmark for courts and practitioners navigating the law of medical decision-making.
Need to cite this case?
Generate a perfectly formatted Bluebook citation in seconds.
Use our Bluebook Citation Generator →