Or. Rev. Stat. » Oregon Revised Statutes
Oregon Revised Statutes

Or. Rev. Stat. § 677.097 (2026)

Procedure to obtain informed consent of patient

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section ORSoregonlegislature.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

      677.097 Procedure to obtain informed consent of patient. (1) In order to obtain the informed consent of a patient, a physician or physician associate shall explain the following:

      (a) In general terms the procedure or treatment to be undertaken;

      (b) That there may be alternative procedures or methods of treatment, if any; and

      (c) That there are risks, if any, to the procedure or treatment.

      (2) After giving the explanation specified in subsection (1) of this section, the physician or physician associate shall ask the patient if the patient wants a more detailed explanation. If the patient requests further explanation, the physician or physician associate shall disclose in substantial detail the procedure, the viable alternatives and the material risks unless to do so would be materially detrimental to the patient. In determining that further explanation would be materially detrimental the physician or physician associate shall give due consideration to the standards of practice of reasonable medical or podiatric practitioners in the same or a similar community under the same or similar circumstances. [1977 c.657 §1; 1983 c.486 §8; 2011 c.550 §8; 2013 c.129 §9; 2024 c.73 §124]

 

      677.098 [1979 c.268 §2; repealed by 1989 c.830 §49]

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 19 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1985–2022 · leading case: Arena v. Gingrich, 748 P.2d 547 (Or. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Arena v. Gingrich, 748 P.2d 547 (Or. 1988). · cites it 7× “Plaintiff alleged three specifications of negligence, the one relevant here being that defendant implanted the Angelchik device “without plaintiffs knowledge or consent, and in violation of ORS 677.097.” That statute provides: “(1) In order to obtain the informed consent of a…”
Klutschkowski v. PeaceHealth, 311 P.3d 461 (Or. 2013). · cites it 5× “At multiple points during the trial, the parties dis- cussed whether and how ORS 677.097, the informed consent statute, applies to a vaginal delivery.”
Gaston v. Parsons, 864 P.2d 1319 (Or. 1994). · cites it 2× “095 (general duty of care for physicians); ORS 677.097 (informed consent). Awareness of tortious conduct is one element of the discovery rule, and the plaintiff need not identify a particular theory for the statute of limitations to begin to run.”
Tiedemann v. Radiation Therapy Consultants, 701 P.2d 440 (Or. 1985). · cites it 4× “That statute, which was amended in 1983 to include podiatrists, Or Laws 1983, ch 486, § 8, provides: “(1) In order to obtain the informed consent of a patient, a physician or podiatrist shall explain the following: (a) In general terms the procedure or treatment to be…”
Zacher v. Petty, 826 P.2d 619 (Or. 1992). · cites it 12× “Plaintiff petitioned for review, asserting that the Court of Appeals misapplied Oregon’s informed consent statute, ORS 677.097. We agree that ORS 677.097 was misapplied, reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, and affirm the judgment in favor of plaintiff.”
Klutschkowski v. PeaceHealth, 263 P.3d 1130 (Or. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 6× “The court began by ruling on OMG’s motion for a directed verdict as to what OMG referred to as plaintiffs’ statutory informed consent “claim” under ORS 677.097 8 — that is, the allegation in paragraph 8 that OMG “did not obtain Bobbi Klutschkowski’s informed consent to deliver…”
Marcum v. Adventist Health Sys./West, 168 P.3d 1214 (Or. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 6× “" As support for that proposition, plaintiff invokes ORS 677.097. [12] The difficulty for plaintiff, however, is that mere failure to comply with ORS 677.”
MacY v. Blatchford, 8 P.3d 204 (Or. 2000). · cites it 4× “In short, we are not persuaded by the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the Macys’ pleadings are a barrier to considering their theory.”
Ketchup v. Howard, 543 S.E.2d 371 (Ga. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “ORS § 677.097. The test as to the further explanation is based on the standard of practice of the reasonable medical practitioner.”
MacY v. Blatchford, 961 P.2d 873 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). · cites it 7× “Over objection, Mazur was permitted to testify about the meaning of “substantial detail” in ORS 677.097, the informed consent statute, 3 and the range of alternatives that should be covered in a PAR conference.”
Wyant/Nichols v. Myers, 81 P.3d 692 (Or. 2003). · cites it 17× “Initiative Petition 40, if adopted, would amend ORS 677.097, which now requires a physician or podiatric physician and surgeon to disclose certain information to a patient to obtain the patient’s informed consent to a procedure or treatment.”
Mears v. Marshall, 905 P.2d 1154 (Or. Ct. App. 1995). · cites it 5× “095, and failed to obtain her informed consent, ORS 677.097. 14 She alleges that he breached the duty of care in one *410 or more of the following ways: by failing to educate himself about the risks associated with the devices; in failing to inform plaintiff of the risks and…”
Show all 19 citing cases →
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 677.097(1) — 3 cases
Tiedemann v. Radiation Therapy Consultants, 701 P.2d 440 (Or. 1985). “That statute, which was amended in 1983 to include podiatrists, Or Laws 1983, ch 486, § 8, provides: “(1) In order to obtain the informed consent of a patient, a physician or podiatrist shall explain the following: (a) In general terms the procedure or treatment to be…”
MacY v. Blatchford, 961 P.2d 873 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “Over objection, Mazur was permitted to testify about the meaning of “substantial detail” in ORS 677.097, the informed consent statute, 3 and the range of alternatives that should be covered in a PAR conference.”
Wyant/Nichols v. Myers, 81 P.3d 692 (Or. 2003). “Initiative Petition 40, if adopted, would amend ORS 677.097, which now requires a physician or podiatric physician and surgeon to disclose certain information to a patient to obtain the patient’s informed consent to a procedure or treatment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 677.097(2) — 5 cases
Zacher v. Petty, 826 P.2d 619 (Or. 1992). “Plaintiff petitioned for review, asserting that the Court of Appeals misapplied Oregon’s informed consent statute, ORS 677.097. We agree that ORS 677.097 was misapplied, reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, and affirm the judgment in favor of plaintiff.”
MacY v. Blatchford, 961 P.2d 873 (Or. Ct. App. 1998). “Over objection, Mazur was permitted to testify about the meaning of “substantial detail” in ORS 677.097, the informed consent statute, 3 and the range of alternatives that should be covered in a PAR conference.”
Wyant/Nichols v. Myers, 81 P.3d 692 (Or. 2003). “Initiative Petition 40, if adopted, would amend ORS 677.097, which now requires a physician or podiatric physician and surgeon to disclose certain information to a patient to obtain the patient’s informed consent to a procedure or treatment.”
Zacher v. Petty, 797 P.2d 1042 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
Wenger v. Oregon Urology Clinic, P.C., 796 P.2d 376 (Or. Ct. App. 1990).
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 677.097(3) — 1 case
Wyant/Nichols v. Myers, 81 P.3d 692 (Or. 2003). “Initiative Petition 40, if adopted, would amend ORS 677.097, which now requires a physician or podiatric physician and surgeon to disclose certain information to a patient to obtain the patient’s informed consent to a procedure or treatment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 677.097(l)(a) — 2 cases
Zacher v. Petty, 826 P.2d 619 (Or. 1992). “Plaintiff petitioned for review, asserting that the Court of Appeals misapplied Oregon’s informed consent statute, ORS 677.097. We agree that ORS 677.097 was misapplied, reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, and affirm the judgment in favor of plaintiff.”
Wyant/Nichols v. Myers, 81 P.3d 692 (Or. 2003). “Initiative Petition 40, if adopted, would amend ORS 677.097, which now requires a physician or podiatric physician and surgeon to disclose certain information to a patient to obtain the patient’s informed consent to a procedure or treatment.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 677.097(l)(b) — 1 case
Zacher v. Petty, 826 P.2d 619 (Or. 1992). “Plaintiff petitioned for review, asserting that the Court of Appeals misapplied Oregon’s informed consent statute, ORS 677.097. We agree that ORS 677.097 was misapplied, reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, and affirm the judgment in favor of plaintiff.”
— Or. Rev. Stat. § 677.097(l)(c) — 1 case
Zacher v. Petty, 826 P.2d 619 (Or. 1992). “Plaintiff petitioned for review, asserting that the Court of Appeals misapplied Oregon’s informed consent statute, ORS 677.097. We agree that ORS 677.097 was misapplied, reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals, and affirm the judgment in favor of plaintiff.”
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.