In a medical malpractice action based on inadequate disclosure of risk information by a physician, the patient must provide evidence to establish prima facie the essential elements of the cause of action. Pinnick v. Louisiana State University Medical Center, 30,263 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2/25/98), 707 So.2d 1050. The plaintiff bears the burden of proving the existence of a material risk unknown to the patient; a failure to disclose the risk on the part of the physician; that disclosure of the risk would have led a reasonable patient in plaintiff's position to reject the medical procedure or choose a different course of treatment; and injury. Id.; Yuska v. HCA Health Services of Louisiana, Inc., 28,878 (La.App. 2d Cir. 12/11/96), 684 So.2d 1093; Roberts v. Cox, 28,094 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2/28/96), 669 So.2d 633. Because the plaintiff bears this burden at trial, Dr. Bryan, to prevail on summary judgment, is not required to negate all essential elements of the plaintiff's claim.
The fact that an injury occurred does not raise a presumption of negligence. La.R.S. 9:2794(C); Yuska v. HCA Health Services of Louisiana, Inc., 28,878 (La.App. 2d Cir. 12/11/96), 684 So.2d 1093. Moreover, a physician (or dentist) is not held to a standard of absolute precision.
Generally, where the circumstances permit, the patient should be told the nature of the pertinent ailment or condition, the general nature of the proposed treatment or procedure, the risks involved therein, the prospects of success, the risks of failing to undergo any treatment or procedure at all and the risks of any alternate methods of treatment. Yuska v. HCA Health Services of Louisiana, Inc., 28,878 (La.App. 2d Cir. 12/11/96), 684 So.2d 1093; Roberts v. Cox, 28,094 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2/28/96), 669 So.2d 633; Elkins v. Key, 29,977 (La.App. 2d Cir. 10/29/97) 702 So.2d 57. LSA R.S. 40:1299.
When testimony conflicts, reasonable evaluations of credibility and inferences of fact should not be disturbed, even if the appellate court concludes that its own factual evaluations and inferences are as reasonable as those made by the trial court. Yuska v. HCA Health Services of Louisiana, Inc., 28,878 (La.App. 2d Cir. 12/11/96), 684 So.2d 1093. The trial court's factual findings must be given great discretion because it has the superior capacity to assess the credibility of witnesses; only the trier of fact can be aware of the variations in demeanor and tone of voice that bear so heavily on the listener's understanding and belief in what is said.
When testimony conflicts, reasonable evaluations of credibility and inferences of fact should not be disturbed, even if the appellate court concludes that its own factual evaluations and inferences are as reasonable as those made by the trial court. Yuska v. HCA Health Services of Louisiana, Inc., 28,878 (La.App. 2d Cir. 12/11/96), 684 So.2d 1093. On this record we cannot find clearly wrong the trial court's conclusion that the restaurant had actual and timely knowledge of the out of place chair in the passageway.
DISCUSSION Credibility determinations, including the evaluation of expert testimony and the ultimate issue of whether plaintiffs have satisfied the burden of proof, are factual issues to be resolved by the trier of fact. Yuska v. HCA Health Services of Louisiana, Inc., 28,878 (La.App. 2d Cir. 12/11/96), 684 So.2d 1093. When testimony conflicts, reasonable evaluations of credibility and reasonable inferences of fact should not be disturbed, even if the appellate court concludes its own evaluations and inferences are as reasonable as those made by the lower court.
Where the circumstances permit, the patient should be told the nature of the pertinent ailment or condition, the general nature of the proposed treatment or procedure, the risks involved therein, the prospects of success, the risks of failing to undergo any treatment or procedure at all, and the risks of any alternate methods of treatment. Hondroulis v. Schuhmacher, 553 So.2d 398 (La. 1988); Yuska v. HCA Health Services of Louisiana, Inc., 28,878 (La.App. 2d Cir. 12/11/96), 684 So.2d 1093; Roberts v. Cox, 28,094 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2/28/96), 669 So.2d 633. In a medical malpractice action based on inadequate disclosure of risk information by a physician, the patient must provide evidence to establish prima facie the essential elements of the cause of action.
Generally, where the circumstances permit, the patient should be told the nature of the pertinent ailment or condition, the general nature of the proposed treatment or procedure, the risks involved therein, the prospects of success, the risks of failing to undergo any treatment or procedure at all and the risks of any alternate methods of treatment. Yuska v. HCA Health Services of Louisiana Inc., 28,878 (La.App. 2d Cir. 12/11/96), 684 So.2d 1093, Roberts v. Cox, 28,094 (La.App. 2d Cir. 2/28/96), 669 So.2d 633. LSA-R.S. 40:1299.