Tortious Bad Blood

It is times like these that make me wish I'd paid more attention in tort law. So many interesting cases! The latest is a Jehovah's Witness suing a hosopital over an allegedly unconsented blood transfusion, with an interesting twist concerning malpractice damage caps:

Claims based on provision of medical services without proper informed consent typically are framed as medical malpractice. A battery claim, however, could sidestep Florida's new statutory cap on noneconomic damages in malpractice actions. The suit cites no specific injury to Cordero other than "trespass against his body."

"The battery charge is based on my client's total lack of consent," said Cordero's attorney, George Bender, a partner at Bender Bender & Chandler in Coral Gables, Fla. "He is extremely devout. It is his deep and firm belief that transfusion is unacceptable for religious reasons."

The story also provides an interesting history of the Witnesses' abstention from blood transfusions and the medical community's reaction. It seems pretty clear to me that, since Witnesses have a right to refuse this treatment, any nonconsensual interference with that right ought to be subject to some remedy in tort. Whether battery makes sense, and whether it can be used as an end-run around the malpractice damage limits, remains to be seen.