WI · jury_instructions
Wis JI-Civil 1023.2
Professional Negligence: Medical: Duty of Physician to Inform a Patient
Question _____ asks: On (date), was Dr. ________ negligent in informing (patient)
about the availability of reasonable alternate medical modes of treatment and about the
risks and benefits of these alternate treatments? A doctor has the duty to inform (his) (her)
patient about reasonable alternate medical modes of treatment available to the patient and
about the risks and benefits of the treatments that a reasonable physician in the same or a
similar medical specialty would know and disclose under the circumstances. If a physician
fails to perform this duty to inform, (he) (she) is negligent in informing (his) (her) patient.
A physician’s duty to inform (his) (her) patient does not require disclosure of
(include as applicable):
• Detailed technical information that in all probability a patient would not
understand.
• Risks apparent or known to the patient.
• Extremely remote possibilities that might falsely or detrimentally alarm the
patient.
• Information in emergencies where failure to provide treatment would be more
harmful to the patient than treatment.
• Information in cases where the patient is incapable of consenting.
• Information about alternate medical modes of treatment for any condition the
physician has not included in his or her diagnosis at the time the physician
informs the patient.
You have heard testimony during this trial from doctors who have testified as expert
witnesses. This is because information about the availability of reasonable alternate
medical modes of treatment and about the risks and benefits of the treatments that a
reasonable physician would disclose to a patient in the circumstances of this case is not a
matter within the common knowledge of lay persons. The reasonable physician’s standard
of informing a patient is within the special knowledge of experts in the field of medicine
and can only be established by the testimony of experts. You may not speculate or guess
what the standard of informing a patient is in deciding this case but rather must attempt to
determine it from the expert testimony that you have heard during this trial. In determining
the weight to be given an opinion, you should consider the qualifications and credibility of
the expert and whether reasons for the opinion are based on facts in the case. You are not
bound by any expert’s opinion.
History
Wis JI-Civil 1023.2 (2015). ©2015, Regents, Univ. of Wis. Prepared by the Wisconsin Civil Jury Instructions Committee of the Wisconsin Judicial Conference with the University of Wisconsin Law School; posted by the Wisconsin State Law Library with the University's permission.
Provenance
- Source
- wilawlibrary.gov
- Retrieved
- 2026-09-24
- Edition
- 2026-09-24
- Content hash
5569650a8cc0aae0968d39e12b9d6762d3b6367bb2d9a9d837d2a3141eda084f
The link goes to the issuing authority’s own document — the one we read to produce this record. Where a source publishes whole titles rather than sections, your browser may need a moment to jump to the provision.
Unofficial copy of government-published law, reproduced from official sources with full provenance. Not an official publication; verify against official sources before relying on it in a filing. Records in the 'guidance' corpus, and only that corpus, are sub-regulatory (interpretive guidelines, survey procedures) and are not binding law. Validity bounds follow each jurisdiction's declared temporalBasis.