Automatic Consumer Protection Recovery Act for Lack of Informed Consent: Quimby v. Fine
This Note will demonstrate the need to refine the entrepreneurial aspects test as it applies to medical professionals and suggest a rationale for identifying those lack-of-informed-consent actions to which the Consumer Protection Act rightfully applies. Specifically, this Note seeks to: 1) demonstrate that satisfaction of the statutory elements of a lack-of-informed-consent claim necessarily satisfies the five prongs of the Hangman private dispute test; 2) show that the additional requirement that the lack of informed consent "relate to the entrepreneurial aspects of the medical practice" has not been definitively interpreted, and that it may be unintelligible in context; 3) identify the practical difficulties of distinguishing entrepreneurial activity from professional activity within the framework of informed consent in health care, and suggest a plausible interpretation of the "entrepreneurial aspects test" that may aid in identifying those types of lack-of-informed-consent actions to which the Consumer Protection Act should apply; and 4) consider the policies justifying this suggested interpretation.
Dr. Carroll Rusk, Jr., Automatic Consumer Protection Recovery Act for Lack of Informed Consent: Quimby v. Fine, 11 SEATTLE U. L. REV. 347 (1988).