Connection lost
Server error
Montalvo v. Borkovec Case Brief
Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs
Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: Parents sued physicians for failing to obtain informed consent before resuscitating their extremely premature infant, arguing they should have been informed of disability risks and allowed to decline treatment. The court affirmed dismissal, finding no such duty.
Legal Significance: The case establishes that physicians generally do not have a duty to obtain informed consent to withhold emergency, life-saving resuscitation from a newborn, even if parents wish to consider potential future disabilities.
Montalvo v. Borkovec Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Nancy Montalvo experienced preterm labor, delivering Emanuel Vila at 23 and 3/7 weeks gestation. Prior to the cesarean section, the parents executed an informed consent agreement for that procedure. Upon birth, Emanuel required immediate life-saving resuscitation, performed by Dr. Arnold, a neonatologist. The parents later sued Drs. Arnold and Berkoff, and St. Mary’s Hospital, alleging a violation of the informed consent statute, Wis. Stat. § 448.30, for performing resuscitation without first advising them of the risks of disability associated with extreme prematurity and allowing them to choose against such measures. They did not allege that Emanuel was disabled by any actions taken by the physicians, but rather that the decision to use ‘extraordinary care measures’ should have been theirs. The trial court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim, ruling that Dr. Arnold, as a non-treating physician for the cesarean, had no informed consent duty for that procedure, and that Wisconsin law and public policy do not grant parents the sole right to decide on neonatal resuscitation in an emergency.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Did the physicians have a legal duty under Wisconsin’s informed consent statute to inform the parents of the statistical risks of disability for an extremely premature infant and offer them the alternative of withholding life-saving resuscitation immediately after birth?
The court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. The physicians had no Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit
IRAC Legal Analysis
Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.
Legal Issue
Did the physicians have a legal duty under Wisconsin’s informed consent statute to inform the parents of the statistical risks of disability for an extremely premature infant and offer them the alternative of withholding life-saving resuscitation immediately after birth?
Conclusion
This case significantly limits the scope of informed consent claims regarding emergency Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatu
Legal Rule
Under Wis. Stat. § 448.30, a physician must inform a patient about Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia
Legal Analysis
The court reasoned that the doctrine of informed consent applies only when Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A physician has no duty to obtain informed consent before resuscitating