No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Jury found Dr. Knobeloch negligent and liable for lack of informed consent in prescribing Lamictal to a six-year-old patient who developed Stevens-Johnson Syndrome. Verdict awarded $1,578,539.51, reduced to $1,028,539.51 after remittitur. Appellate court affirmed the judgment.
Defendant doctor appeals a medical malpractice decision. We found that the doctor failed to disclose the risks with medical treatment, the plaintiff expert was qualified to testify of the causal connection between the medical treatment and harm, the trial court properly gave informed consent jury instructions and properly excluded failure to mitigate instructions, there is sufficient evidence to suppot the jury's verdict and the trial court properly conducted the trial and the determination of expert witness. Judgment affirmed.
R.T. v. Knobeloch: Doctor Failed to Warn About Serious Drug Risks
This case involved a six-year-old patient who was prescribed Lamictal, a medication, by Dr. Knobeloch. The child developed Stevens-Johnson Syndrome, a serious and potentially life-threatening skin condition that can be caused by certain medications. The family sued, claiming the doctor was negligent and failed to properly inform them about the risks of this medication before prescribing it.
The jury found that Dr. Knobeloch was negligent and did not obtain proper "informed consent" - meaning he failed to adequately explain the potential dangers of the medication to the patient's family. The court awarded over $1 million in damages to compensate for the harm caused. When the doctor appealed, the higher court upheld the decision, agreeing that the doctor should have done more to warn about the medication's risks.
Why This Matters for Workers: While this was a medical malpractice case, it reinforces an important principle that applies to workplace safety: professionals have a duty to inform people about serious risks. In employment settings, this means employers should clearly communicate workplace hazards and safety procedures. Workers have the right to be informed about dangers they may face on the job.
This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.