green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 4×
10.2 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 1987 ·
…the average patient has little or no understanding of the medical arts, and ordinarily has only his physician to whom he can look for enlightenment with which to reach an intelligent decision.
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1973 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1973
1999
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 41 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "but see"
Parr v. Palmyra Park Hospital, Inc.
But see Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F2d 772 (D.C.C.A. 1972), cert. den., 409 U.S. 1064 (93 SC 560, 34 LE2d 518), holding that the physician’s duty to disclose arises from legal obligation, not from customary medical practice.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Keomaka v. Zakaib
a causal connection exists when, but only when, disclosure of significant risks incidental to treatment would have resulted in a decision against it
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Cruzan Ex Rel. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health
the root premise" of informed consent "is the concept, fundamental in american jurisprudence, that very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Dicie Ellen Hibley Swayze, Legal Guardian and Next Friend of Michael Wayne Swayze v. McNeil Laboratories, Inc.
(2×)
the average patient has little or no understanding of the medical arts, and ordinarily has only his physician to whom he can look for enlightenment with which to reach an intelligent decision.
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Precourt v. Frederick
materiality is, in essence, the product of the risk and its chance of occurring
discussed
Cited "see"
State Ex Rel. Johnson & Johnson Corp. v. Karl
(2×)
See Largey v. Rothman, 110 N.J. 204, 206 , 540 A.2d 504 (1988) (discussing Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972)).
cited
Cited "see"
Linquito v. Siegel
Accord, Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F. 2d 772, 780 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed. 2d 518 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Perez v. Wyeth Laboratories Inc.
(2×)
See Largey v. Rothman, 110 N.J. 204, 206 , 540 A.2d 504 (1988) (discussing Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972)).
cited
Cited "see"
Miller v. Rhode Island Hospital
See Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 , 780 n.15 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972); Wilkinson, 110 R.I. at 620 n.7, 623-24, 295 A.2d at 685 n.7, 687.
cited
Cited "see"
United States v. Juan Angel Huguez-Ibarra, United States of America v. Dagobastro Olivarria-Palacios
See United States v. Campbell, 466 F.2d 529, 531 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1062 , 93 S.Ct. 571 , 34 L.Ed.2d 516 (1972).
cited
Cited "see"
Saunders v. Nemati
See Canterbury v. Spence, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 263 , 284, 464 F.2d 772, 793 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972).
cited
Cited "see"
GRAY BY GRAY v. Romeo
See Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 780 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972).
cited
Cited "see"
Gray ex rel. Gray v. Romeo
See Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 780 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972).
cited
Cited "see"
Whitlock v. Salmon
See Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 , 796 n. 149 (D.C.Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 (1972). 5 Even so, the federal practice has been rejected by a number of states.
discussed
Cited "see"
Roberts Ex Rel. Roberts v. Patel
Miceikis v. Field, 37 Ill.App.3d 763 , 347 N.E.2d 320, 324 (1976); see Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972); Halley v. Birbiglia, 390 Mass. 540 , 458 N.E.2d 710, 714 (1983).
cited
Cited "see"
Curtis v. Heckler
See Harmon v. Finch, 460 F.2d 1229 (9th Cir.1972) cert. denied 409 U.S. 1063 , 93 S.Ct. 571 , 34 L.Ed.2d 515 (1973).
cited
Cited "see"
District of Columbia Ex Rel. W.J.D. v. E.M.
See Canterbury v. Spence, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 263 , 284, 464 F.2d 772, 793 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see"
Monroe v. State Court of Fulton County
See United States v. Crosson, 462 F.2d 96 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 (1972); Joyce v. United States, 454 F.2d 971 (D.C.Cir.1971), cert. denied, 405 U.S. 969 , 92 S.Ct. 1188 , 31 L.Ed .2d 242 (1972); cf. United States v. Kime, 673 F.2d 1318 (4th Cir.1982) (affirming conviction under federal flag-burning statute), cert, denied, — U.S. —, 103 S.Ct. 266 , 74 L.Ed.2d 207 (1982).
discussed
Cited "see"
LaCaze v. Collier
See Rosoff, supra at 75-231 for a state by state analysis. [17] The influential decision of Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972), challenged the theoretical underpinnings of the majority of jurisdictions' physician-based standard.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bonaire Development Co. v. Commissioner
(2×)
See Anders v. United States, 199 Ct. Cl. 1 , 462 F.2d 1147, 1149 (1972), cert. denied 409 U.S. 1064 (1972); Spitalny v. United States, 430 F.2d 195, 198 (9th Cir. 1970).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Boyd
See Canterbury v. Spence, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 263 , 271, 464 F.2d 772, 780 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972) (all competent persons have the right to refuse medical treatment). 6 .
cited
Cited "see"
Gillman v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield of Greater New York
See In re Los Angeles Trust Deed & Mortgage Exchange, 464 F.2d 1136, 1139-40 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, Phipps v. Associate Fundings, Inc., 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 558 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972).
cited
Cited "see"
Siegel v. Mt. Sinai Hospital
See Canterbury v. Spence (1972), 464 F. 2d 772 , certiorari denied, 409 U.S. 1064 ; Waltz and Scheuneman, Informed Consent to Therapy, 64 Nw.
discussed
Cited "see"
Hales v. Pittman
See Canterbury v. Spence, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 263 , 464 F.2d 772 (1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972); Miller v. Kennedy, 11 Wash.App. 272 , 522 P.2d 852 (1974) , aff’d, 85 Wash.2d 151 , 530 P.2d 334 (1975) .
discussed
Cited "see"
United States v. Philip A. McLennan and Fred H. Bender
(2×)
See United States v. Campbell, 9 Cir., 1972, 466 F.2d 529, 531 , cert. denied, 1972, 409 U.S. 1062 , 93 S.Ct. 571 , 34 L.Ed.2d 516 ; Petley v. United States, 9 Cir., 1970, 427 F.2d 1101, 1106 , cert. denied, 1970, 400 U.S. 827 , 91 S.Ct. 55 , 27 L.Ed. 57 . 29 In this case, Burnett was subject to cross-examination and, indeed, at the end of his testimony specifically asked for and received permission to explain the context in which the statement was made.
cited
Cited "see"
Lois Sawyer and David Sawyer v. Methodist Hospital
See Canterbury v. Spence, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 263 , 464 F.2d 772, 783 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972); W.
discussed
Cited "see"
Roberson v. Christoferson
See Cantebury v. Spence, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 263 , 464 F.2d 772 (1972), cert. den., 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 ; Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229 , 104 Cal. Rptr. 505 , 502 P.2d 1 (1972), and the Court would hesitate to dismiss this cause of action if Plaintiffs’ characterization is correct, since Plaintiffs’ failure to comply with the rules and the order of the Court relating to expert testimony would not be material to the preparation of Plaintiffs’ case or the defense.
discussed
Cited "see"
Bowers v. Garfield
See Canterbury v. Spence, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 263 , 464 F.2d 772 (1972), cert. denied 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 ; Fogal v. The Genesee Hospital, 41 A.D.2d 468 , 344 N.Y.S.2d 552 (1973); Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229 , 502 P.2d 1 , 104 Cal.Rptr. 505 (1972); Wilkinson v. Vesey, R.I., 295 A.2d 676 (1972); Sharpe v. Pugh, 270 N.C. 598 , 155 S.E.2d 108 (1967); Shetter v. Rochelle, 2 Ariz.App. 358 , 409 P.2d 74 (1965). 4 .
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Gene T. Gregory v. Marshall Poor, M.D.
See, e.g., Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 790 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 (1972). 12 Mr. Gregory was aware of his injuries from the breach, and the statute of limitations began to run, the moment he comprehended harm from the surgery about which he had not been informed.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rosario v. United States
For indeed, “ ‘it is the prerogative of the patient, not the physician, to determine ... the direction in which ... [the patient’s] interests' lie.’ ” Harnish , 387 Mass, at 154, 439 N.E.2d 240 (quoting Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229, 242 , 104 Cal.Rptr. 505 , 502 P.2d 1 (1972)); see also Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 781 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Battocchi v. Washington Hospital Center
See also Canterbury v. Spence, 150 U.S. App.D.C. 263, 287, 464 F.2d 772, 796 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Gardner
(2×)
See, e.g., Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 780 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972); Natanson v. Kline, 186 Kan. 393, 406-07 , 350 P.2d 1093, 1104 (1960).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Pauscher v. Iowa Methodist Medical Center
In Cowman, 329 N.W.2d at 425 , we quoted the definition of materiality, in this context, that was adopted by the court in Wilkinson v. Vesey, 110 R.I. 606 , 295 A.2d 676 (1972): Materiality may be said to be the significance a reasonable person, in what the physician knows or should know is his [or her] patient’s position, would attach to the disclosed risk or risks in deciding *362 whether to submit ... to surgery or treatment. 110 R.I. at 627 , 295 A.2d at 689 ; see also Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 787 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972); …
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Mary Sue Estes v. Railroad Retirement Board
(2×)
See, e.g., Harmon v. Finch, 460 F.2d 1229, 1231 (9th Cir.) cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1063 , 93 S.Ct. 571 , 34 L.Ed.2d 516 (1972); 20 C.F.R.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Wheeldon v. Madison
(2×)
See, e.g., Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (D.C.Cir.1972); Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229 , 104 Cal.Rptr. 505 , 502 P.2d 1 (1972); Logan v. Greenwich Hosp.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cowman v. Hornaday
See, e.g., Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 786 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972); Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d at 245 , 104 Cal.Rptr. at 515 , 502 P.2d at 11 ; Harnish v. Children’s Hospital Medical Center, 387 Mass. 152, 155 , 439 N.E.2d 240, 243 (1982); Cornfeldt v. Tongen, 262 N.W.2d 684, 701-02 (Minn.1977); Wilkinson v. Vesey, 110 R.I. 606, 626-27 , 295 A.2d 676, 688 (1972).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Washington Hospital Center v. Martin
See also Canterbury v. Spence, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 263 , 286-287, 464 F.2d 772, 795-796 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972). 6 Recognizing that the Butler case seriously undermines its position, appellant attempts to distinguish it by pointing out that there was “clearly no involvement of sophisticated professional judgment in the transactional fact pattern underlying Butler’’ (Appellant’s Brief at 17).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Woolley v. Henderson
(2×)
See, e. g., Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 786-87 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972); Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229, 243-45 , 502 P.2d 1, 10-11 , 104 Cal.Rptr. 505, 514-15 (1972); Sard v. Hardy, 281 Md. 432 , 439—445, 379 A.2d 1014, 1020-22 (1977); Wilkinson v. Vesey, 110 R.I. 606, 620-626 , 295 A.2d 676, 686-88 (1972). 4 A basic principle of medical malpractice law is that the physician is not an insurer.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Malloy v. Shanahan
(2×)
See, e.g., Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C.Cir. 1972) cert. denied 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972); Cobbs v. Grant, 8 Cal.3d 229 , 104 Cal.Rptr. 505 , 502 P.2d 1 (1972); Nishi v. Hartwell, 52 Haw. 188 , 473 P.2d 116 (1970); Natanson v. Kline, 186 Kan. 393 , 350 P.2d 1093 (1960); Downer v. Veilleux, 322 A.2d 82 (Me. 1974); Sard v. Hardy, 281 Md. 432 , 379 A.2d 1014 (1977); Calabrese v. Trenton State College, 162 N.J.Super. 145 , 392 A.2d 600 (1978); Shack v. Holland, 89 Misc.2d 78 , 389 N.Y.S.2d 988 (1976); Wilkinson v. Vesey, 110 R.I. 606 , 295 A.2d 676 (1972); Mil…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Rogers v. Okin
Compare Canterbury v. Spence, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 263 , 274, 464 F.2d, 772, 783 (D.C.Cir.1972) (no proof of deviation necessary), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972), with Aiken v. Clary, 396 S.W.2d 668, 675-76 (Mo. 1965) (duty depends on whether it was the custom of physicians practicing in the community to make particular disclosure to plaintiff). 66 .
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Walko Corporation v. Burger Chef Systems, Inc., an Indiana Corporation
See also Canterbury v. Spence, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 263 , 284, 464 F.2d 772, 793 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064 , 93 S.Ct. 560 , 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972). 38 .
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re Engler
No. 72-5545.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Dec 11, 1972.
Sup. Ct. Ind. Cer-tiorari denied.