## Facts

- Jack R. Summers experienced persistent stomach pain and, after imaging suggested a possible intestinal mass, physicians recommended an intravenous pyelogram (IVP) as the next diagnostic step.
- An IVP uses iodine-based contrast dye; severe reactions, including death, are possible, with fatal reactions described as rare.
- Summers reported to the hospital for the IVP performed by Dr. Jerry C. Rothstein, a radiologist.
- Dr. Rothstein asked Summers whether he had allergies; Summers, despite a long history of allergies, did not disclose them.
- Dr. Rothstein did not warn Summers of the risk of a potentially fatal contrast reaction, believing apprehension could contribute to reactions.
- Shortly after the IVP began, Summers suffered a severe reaction and died.
- Summers’s estate brought a wrongful death/medical malpractice action alleging negligent failure to obtain informed consent due to inadequate risk disclosure.

## Issues

1. What standard governs a physician’s duty to disclose risks for informed consent in South Carolina: a professional (physician-based) standard or a patient-oriented/material-risk standard?
2. Under the governing standard, did the trial court commit reversible error in instructing the jury and handling the case such that the defense verdict should be set aside?

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment for Dr. Rothstein after a jury verdict in his favor.
- The court held that South Carolina applies a professional standard to informed-consent disclosure duties.
- Under that standard, the scope of required disclosure is generally established through expert medical testimony regarding what a reasonably prudent physician in similar circumstances would disclose.
- The court found the trial court’s instructions and rulings consistent with this standard and found no reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- In informed-consent medical malpractice actions, a physician’s duty to disclose risks is measured by the professional standard: what a reasonably prudent practitioner in the same field and under similar circumstances would disclose.
- The applicable disclosure standard, and a deviation from it, ordinarily must be proven by competent expert medical testimony.
- Whether, and to what extent, particular risks should be disclosed is treated as a matter of medical judgment for which professional norms guide the factfinder.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a defense verdict in a wrongful death informed-consent claim arising from a fatal IVP contrast reaction, holding that South Carolina measures a physician’s disclosure obligations by professional medical standards proved through expert testimony, not by a reasonable-patient/material-risk test.


Hook v. Rothstein, 316 S.E.2d 690 (S.C. Ct. App. 1984)