## Facts

- Danita Macy was a long-time gynecology patient of Douglas M. Blatchford, M.D., and sought treatment for recurrent pelvic pain in 1992.
- Another physician performed a February 1992 laparoscopy removing an endometrioma from Macy’s left ovary; Blatchford later diagnosed endometriosis.
- In June 1992, Blatchford performed laparoscopic surgery that removed Macy’s left ovary and left fallopian tube.
- Macy continued to have pelvic pain; in August 1992, Blatchford recommended and performed additional surgery removing Macy’s right ovary, right fallopian tube, and uterus.
- Macy later was diagnosed with an obstructed left ureter; a later physician believed the ureter had been inadvertently stapled during the June 1992 surgery.
- Macy alleged that she and Blatchford engaged in a sexual relationship during the 1992 treatment period.
- The Macys sued for medical negligence, including negligent surgery, negligent recommendation of the August surgery, and lack of informed consent to the August surgery; Lawrence Macy asserted a derivative claim.
- Before trial, the court granted Blatchford’s motion in limine excluding all evidence of the alleged sexual relationship; the jury returned a verdict for Blatchford.
- The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed; the Oregon Supreme Court granted review to determine whether, and how, such evidence could be relevant to negligence claims.

## Issues

1. Whether evidence of a contemporaneous sexual relationship between a physician and patient is relevant and admissible in a medical malpractice action alleging failure to obtain informed consent for surgery.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding that evidence on the ground of unfair prejudice.

## Decision

- The Oregon Supreme Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the Court of Appeals.
- The court held that evidence of a contemporaneous sexual relationship was relevant to the claim that Blatchford negligently failed to obtain Macy’s informed consent to the August 1992 surgery.
- The court reversed the circuit court’s judgment and remanded for further proceedings because the blanket exclusion prevented plaintiffs from presenting relevant evidence on informed consent.
- The court’s ruling was limited; it did not broadly approve the evidence for all negligence theories, focusing most clearly on informed consent.

## Legal Principles

- Relevant evidence is evidence having any tendency to make a consequential fact more or less probable; relevance is assessed in relation to the elements of the claim.
- Informed consent requires evaluating not only what was disclosed, but also the circumstances affecting whether the patient’s decision was informed and voluntary.
- A contemporaneous physician–patient sexual relationship can be probative of informed consent by bearing on conflicts of interest, impaired professional judgment, and undue influence affecting the patient’s decision-making.
- Even sensitive evidence is not subject to categorical exclusion when it is substantially probative of a claim; exclusion for unfair prejudice must be justified under the governing balancing standard, and a complete bar may be an abuse of discretion when it removes key context for the jury.

## Conclusion

The Oregon Supreme Court held that, in a malpractice case alleging lack of informed consent to surgery, evidence that the physician and patient had a sexual relationship during treatment can be relevant to the voluntariness and validity of the consent decision; excluding it entirely was error as to the informed-consent theory, requiring reversal and remand.


Macy v. Blatchford, 8 P.3d 204 (Or. 2000)