Court rules that jurors require expert testimony to address informed consent issues

In a brief opinon, the Court of Appeals agreed with the medical defendants who argued that Richard Shear's informed consent case could not be brought outside the procedural requirements of the medical malpractice system.  Shear argued that his claims were not "beyond he realm of common knowledge and experience," but the Court pointed out that they arose in the course of a "professional relationship" providing medical care.  Therefore, Shear was required to support his claims, at the outset, by testimony of similarly-specialized expert witnesses.