## Facts

- Duke University’s F.G. Hall Laboratory conducted “Atlantis III,” a nontherapeutic human research experiment simulating an extreme deep dive in a hyperbaric chamber (about 2,250 feet) to study high pressure nervous syndrome and performance under pressure.
- Leonard T. Whitlock, an experienced diver with extensive training, sought participation, was accepted, and voluntarily served as a subject.
- Before participation, Whitlock signed a written informed consent form identifying the activity as research (not treatment), describing serious known risks (including lung collapse and decompression sickness), and warning of unknown risks associated with the extreme-pressure environment.
- After the experiment, Whitlock reported neurological and other health problems and attributed them to Atlantis III, alleging permanent organic brain damage.
- Whitlock and family members sued Duke and Dr. Peter B. Bennett in a diversity action asserting negligence, inadequate informed consent, fraud/fraudulent concealment, breach of fiduciary duty, and related claims.
- The district court granted summary judgment for defendants on all claims; plaintiffs appealed.

## Issues

1. Whether defendants breached a duty to obtain informed consent by failing to disclose material risks beyond those stated in the consent form.
2. Whether plaintiffs produced evidence creating a genuine dispute that defendants fraudulently misrepresented or concealed risks allegedly unique to Atlantis III.
3. Whether plaintiffs produced competent evidence (including expert testimony) that defendants departed from applicable standards of care in designing or conducting the experiment.
4. Whether plaintiffs produced competent evidence (including expert testimony) that defendants’ conduct caused Whitlock’s alleged injuries.

## Decision

- The Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Duke University and Dr. Bennett on all claims.
- The court held the consent disclosures were legally adequate given the written warnings (including unknown risks) and Whitlock’s sophistication and experience.
- The court found no triable evidence that defendants knew of, and intentionally concealed, unique undisclosed dangers.
- The court concluded plaintiffs failed to present sufficient expert evidence of breach of a professional standard of care or medical/scientific causation linking the experiment to the alleged brain injury.

## Legal Principles

- In nontherapeutic human research, informed consent is satisfied when a competent subject is clearly informed of the experimental nature of the activity, known material risks, and the possibility of unknown risks, and voluntarily agrees.
- A knowledgeable participant’s voluntary, informed consent to an inherently dangerous nontherapeutic experiment limits recovery absent proof of fraud or a demonstrable breach of professional standards.
- In technically complex injury claims, plaintiffs must present competent expert evidence on both breach and causation; speculation or the mere occurrence of injury is insufficient to avoid summary judgment.
- Summary judgment is proper where the record shows no genuine dispute of material fact on disclosure, misrepresentation/concealment, standard of care, or causation.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed judgment for the university and researcher because the record showed an experienced subject knowingly and voluntarily consented to a high-risk, nontherapeutic experiment after adequate disclosure, and plaintiffs failed to produce admissible evidence of fraud, negligence, or causation sufficient for trial.


Whitlock v. Duke Univ., 829 F.2d 1340 (4th Cir. 1987)