# Valles v. Albert Einstein Medical Center

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · August 28, 2002 · 569 Pa. 542

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627019

## Case

- **Full name:** Esmelinda VALLES, Administratrix of the Estate of Lope Valles, Deceased; Ruben Valles, Appellant v. ALBERT EINSTEIN MEDICAL CENTER; Leonard H. Cohen, M.D.; Archimede J. Silvestri, M.D.; Paul H. Steerman, M.D.; A. Silvestri Associates; Jay Morros, M.D.; Mark Kramer, M.D.; And Alan Wladis, M.D., Jay Morros, M.D., Cross-Appellant
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** August 28, 2002
- **Citations:** 569 Pa. 542; 805 A.2d 1232; 805 A.2d 1282; 2002 Pa. LEXIS 1783
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Saylor
- **Judges:** Flaherty, Zappala, Cappy, Castille, Nigro, Newman, Saylor, Former
- **Cited by:** 24 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/9627019

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that “doctors must provide patients with” sufficient information to “give the patient ‘a true understanding of the nature of the operation to be performed, the seiiousness of it, the organs of the body involved, the diseasé or incapacity sought to be cured, and the pos…
- holding that a medical facility lacks control over the manner in which a physician performs his/her duty to obtain informed consent, and cannot be vicariously liable for breach of that duty
- describing “an operation performed without the patient’s consent” as a “technical assault” that “sounds in the intentional tort of battery”

## Opinion text

Justice SAYLOR
concurring and dissenting.
With regard to the issue of informed consent as it pertains to Dr. Morros’ attempted placement of the Permacath, I join the majority opinion, as I agree that the doctrine of informed consent, at least under the presently prevailing interpretation of the pertinent statute, see generally Montgomery v. Bazaz-Sehgal, 568 Pa. 574 , 798 A.2d 742 (2002), does not encompass a choice among alternative sites for performing a surgical procedure such as the insertion of a Permacath. 1
As to whether a hospital may be held vicariously liable for an employee-physician’s failure to obtain a patient’s informed consent, I respectfully dissent from the majority’s holding that it cannot, and, as to this issue, join Mr. Justice Nigro’s dissenting opinion to the contrary.
. As I noted in Montgomery, at least the argument can be made that the General Assembly's recent amendments to the statute incorporate negligence concepts. See id. at 591-92 , 798 A.2d at 753 (Saylor, J., concurring).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9627019. Public record. Not legal advice.