# Central Pathology Service Medical Clinic, Inc. v. Superior Court

> California Supreme Court · July 31, 1992 · 3 Cal. 4th 181

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550754

## Case

- **Full name:** CENTRAL PATHOLOGY SERVICE MEDICAL CLINIC, INC., Et Al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; CONSTANCE HULL Et Al., Real Parties in Interest
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 31, 1992
- **Citations:** 3 Cal. 4th 181; 10 Cal. Rptr. 2d 208; 92 Daily Journal DAR 10744; 832 P.2d 924; 92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6732; 1992 Cal. LEXIS 3492
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Mosk
- **Judges:** Lucas, Mosk
- **Cited by:** 87 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550754

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- emphasizing Central Pathology’s application to section 425.13

## Opinion text

MOSK, J., Concurring and Dissenting.
I concur in the result. However, the majority paint with much too broad a brush in their apparent desire to eliminate any possibility of punitive damages against a medical provider, no matter how egregious the conduct.
The conclusion that section 425.13 of the Code of Civil Procedure applies to an action for battery “predicated on treatment exceeding or different from that to which a plaintiff consented” (maj. opn., ante, p. 192) cannot withstand scrutiny. For example, the majority would require a plaintiff to comply with the section if she consents to a mere exploratory procedure, but without her knowledge or consent and in the absence of an emergency the doctor performs a hysterectomy—thus permanently depriving her of reproductive ability. (See Hundley v. St. Francis Hospital (1958) 161 Cal.App.2d 800, 806 [ 327 P.2d 131 , 80 A.L.R.2d 360 ].) Such a legal result would be indefensible.
A medical provider’s right to examine, touch, palpate or excise any part of a person’s body depends entirely on the patient’s consent, with the exception of treatment required in an emergency. If a part of a patient’s body is removed without consent, there can be no question that a common law battery has been committed. A battery gives rise to an action for compensatory and possible punitive damages. A plaintiff should not be required to beg the court’s permission to seek any or all of those damages merely because the battery arises out of medical services provided by the defendant when the services were neither sought nor desired.
*194 The approach taken by the majority is legally restrictive and morally callous. However, since I agree with the result under the facts of this case, I concur.
The petition of real parties in interest for a rehearing was denied September 24, 1992. Mosk, J., was of the opinion that the petition should be granted.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9550754. Public record. Not legal advice.