Arato v. Avedon, 5 Cal. 4th 1172, 23 Cal. Rptr. 2d 131, 858 P.2d 598 (Cal. 1993)
Arato v. Avedon is a leading California Supreme Court decision refining the boundaries of a physician's duty to disclose information to patients under the doctrine of informed consent.
Do physicians have a legal duty, as a matter of informed consent, to disclose statistical life-expectancy or survival-rate data to a patient, irrespective of patient inquiry or case-specific circumstances?
Under Cobbs v. Grant, a physician must disclose all information material to a reasonable patient's decision to accept or reject a proposed treatment, including the nature of the procedure, its risks, benefits, alternatives, and the likely consequences of no treatment. The materiality standard is patient-centered, not defined by professional custom, though expert testimony may inform what risks exist, their likelihood, and accepted medical understandings. Physicians must not misrepresent or make false assurances and must answer a patient's specific questions truthfully and fully. However, there is no per se duty to volunteer numerical life-expectancy or survival-rate statistics; whether and how prognosis is discussed depends on materiality in the particular circumstances.
No. The California Supreme Court held there is no categorical legal duty requiring physicians to disclose statistical life-expectancy or survival-rate data. It was error to instruct the jury that such disclosure was required as a matter of law. The Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings under proper informed-consent principles.
Arato refines the scope of informed consent in California. It confirms that materiality remains the touchstone, but declines to impose a per se duty to disclose numerical life-expectancy or survival statistics. The case is frequently taught alongside Cobbs v. Grant to illustrate the balance between patient autonomy and practical clinical communication, the limits on mandatory disclosure, the importance of accurate, non-misleading qualitative discussions about prognosis and therapeutic goals, and the obligation to respond truthfully to patient-specific inquiries. It also provides guidance on proper jury instructions and the role of expert testimony in informed-consent cases.