Kentucky Revised Statutes

Ky. Rev. Stat. § 304.40-320 (2026)

Informed consent -- When deemed given

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section KY-LRCapps.legislature.ky.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

In any action brought for treating, examining, or operating on a claimant wherein the claimant's informed consent is an element, the claimant's informed consent shall be deemed to have been given where:

(1) The action of the health care provider in obtaining the consent of the patient or another person authorized to give consent for the patient was in accordance with the accepted standard of medical or dental practice among members of the profession with similar training and experience; and

(2) A reasonable individual, from the information provided by the health care provider under the circumstances, would have a general understanding of the procedure and medically or dentally acceptable alternative procedures or treatments and substantial risks and hazards inherent in the proposed treatment or procedures which are recognized among other health care providers who perform similar treatments or procedures;

(3) In an emergency situation where consent of the patient cannot reasonably be obtained before providing health care services, there is no requirement that a health care provider obtain a previous consent. Effective: July 1, 1976 History: Created 1976 Ky. Acts ch. 163, sec. 8, effective July 1, 1976.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (5 in the last 5 years), 1990–2024 · leading case: Sargent v. Shaffer.
Sargent v. Shaffer (Ky. 2015). · cites it 64× “Shaffer’s duties under KRS 304.40-320, Kentucky’s informed consent statute.”
Alex Argotte M.D. v. Jacqulyn G. Harrington (Ky. 2017). · cites it 36× “2015], which plumbed the depths of Kentucky’s statutory standard for informed consent, KRS 304.40-320. On discretionary review, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, although we do so on different grounds based upon our decision in Sargent.”
Keel v. St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr. (Ky. 1992). · cites it 21× “KRS 304.40-320 appears to adopt the same approach: In any action brought for treating, examining, or operating on a claimant wherein the claimant's informed consent is an element, the claimant's informed consent shall be deemed to have been given where: (1) The action of the…”
Vitale v. Henchey (Ky. 2000). · cites it 4× “I would reverse the Court of Appeals and reinstate the judgment of the trial court.”
Larkin v. Pfizer, Inc. (Ky. 2004). · cites it 2× “Furthermore, the learned intermediary rule is consistent with our informed consent statute, KRS 304.40-320, which anticipates that doctors will inform their patients of any risks or dangers inherent in proposed treatment: [T]he claimant's informed consent shall be deemed to have…”
Kovacs v. Freeman (Ky. 1997). · cites it 2× “The Kentucky statute dealing with legal requirements for valid informed consent to medical treatment, KRS 304.40-320, makes no reference to a written consent document.”
Fraser v. Miller (Ky. 2014). · cites it 3× “Miller argued KRS 304.40-320 regulates when informed consent must be obtained and encompasses all treatment.”
Snawder v. Cohen (W.D. Ky. 1990). · cites it 2× “KRS 304.40-320 provides: Informed consent — When deemed given.”
Lewis v. Kenady (Ky. 1994). · cites it 2× “[1] Nothing in KRS 304.40-320, which attempts to codify the common law as to when informed consent has been given and obtained, remotely suggests a different result.”
Hawkins v. Rosenbloom (Ky. Ct. App. 2000). “The law of informed consent, KRS 304.40-320, states as follows: In any action brought for treating, examining, or operating on a claimant wherein the claimant’s informed consent is an element, the claimant’s informed consent shall be deemed to have been given where: (1) The…”
Univ. Med. Ctr., Inc. D/B/A James Graham Brown Cancer Ctr. v. Reagan Brooke Shwab (Ky. 2021). · cites it 24× “Therefore, a breach of the statutory standard for informed consent can be established by proving that a medical care provider failed to meet either subsection of KRS 304.40-320. Argotte v. Harrington, 521 S.”
Charmin Watson v. Landmark Urology, P.S.C. (Ky. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 8× “KRS 304.40-320 does not create a separate claim, nor is there a requirement that the statute be specifically pled.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 304.40-320(1) — 8 cases
Sargent v. Shaffer (Ky. 2015). “Shaffer’s duties under KRS 304.40-320, Kentucky’s informed consent statute.”
Alex Argotte M.D. v. Jacqulyn G. Harrington (Ky. 2017). “2015], which plumbed the depths of Kentucky’s statutory standard for informed consent, KRS 304.40-320. On discretionary review, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, although we do so on different grounds based upon our decision in Sargent.”
Keel v. St. Elizabeth Med. Ctr. (Ky. 1992). “KRS 304.40-320 appears to adopt the same approach: In any action brought for treating, examining, or operating on a claimant wherein the claimant's informed consent is an element, the claimant's informed consent shall be deemed to have been given where: (1) The action of the…”
Univ. Med. Ctr., Inc. D/B/A James Graham Brown Cancer Ctr. v. Reagan Brooke Shwab (Ky. 2021). “Therefore, a breach of the statutory standard for informed consent can be established by proving that a medical care provider failed to meet either subsection of KRS 304.40-320. Argotte v. Harrington, 521 S.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 304.40-320(2) — 7 cases
Sargent v. Shaffer (Ky. 2015). “Shaffer’s duties under KRS 304.40-320, Kentucky’s informed consent statute.”
Alex Argotte M.D. v. Jacqulyn G. Harrington (Ky. 2017). “2015], which plumbed the depths of Kentucky’s statutory standard for informed consent, KRS 304.40-320. On discretionary review, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, although we do so on different grounds based upon our decision in Sargent.”
Univ. Med. Ctr., Inc. D/B/A James Graham Brown Cancer Ctr. v. Reagan Brooke Shwab (Ky. 2021). “Therefore, a breach of the statutory standard for informed consent can be established by proving that a medical care provider failed to meet either subsection of KRS 304.40-320. Argotte v. Harrington, 521 S.”
Charmin Watson v. Landmark Urology, P.S.C. (Ky. Ct. App. 2020). “KRS 304.40-320 does not create a separate claim, nor is there a requirement that the statute be specifically pled.”
— Ky. Rev. Stat. § 304.40-320(3) — 2 cases
Univ. Med. Ctr., Inc. D/B/A James Graham Brown Cancer Ctr. v. Reagan Brooke Shwab (Ky. 2021). “Therefore, a breach of the statutory standard for informed consent can be established by proving that a medical care provider failed to meet either subsection of KRS 304.40-320. Argotte v. Harrington, 521 S.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.