Which case addressed emotional distress suffered by a patient after learning the uterus had been removed without knowledge or consent?

• A. Cobbs v Grant
• B. Shinal v Toms
• C. Natanson v Kline
• D. Canterbury v Spence

Answer: (A)

Emotional distress damages in medical malpractice arise when a patient’s autonomy is breached by negligent treatment or deception about what will be done. Cobbs v. Grant is the leading case here because it explicitly allowed recovery for emotional distress caused by negligent medical care, including failures related to obtaining informed consent or misrepresenting the procedure. In a situation where a uterus is removed without the patient’s knowledge or consent, the patient would understandably suffer severe emotional distress upon learning what happened. Cobbs provides the legal basis that such distress can be compensable as part of medical malpractice damages, even if there isn’t a separate physical injury.

The other cases underpin informed-consent standards—what doctors must disclose and how decisions should be made—but they don’t address emotional-distress damages from a non-consensual procedure as clearly as Cobbs.