A lumbar puncture was performed on a patient without a signed informed consent form. This patient might sue for:

• A. Punitive damages
• B. Civil battery
• C. Assault
• D. Nothing, no violation has occurred

Answer: (B)

Key idea: performing an invasive procedure without valid patient consent is non-consensual touching that can amount to civil battery in medical practice.

A lumbar puncture is an invasive procedure that requires the patient’s informed consent. If it’s done without a signed consent (or any valid consent), the physician has touched the patient without authorization. In legal terms, that’s civil battery—the intentional or knowingly non-consensual touching that is offensive or harmful, even if it’s performed with medical care in mind.

Why this fits better than the other options: assault involves threatening or causing fear of imminent harmful contact, but there was actual contact here, so battery, not assault. Saying there’s nothing violated ignores the non-consensual touch. Punitive damages are not the typical remedy for a lack of informed consent; they’re reserved for particularly egregious behavior beyond ordinary negligence or lack of consent, whereas civil battery directly addresses the unconsented touching itself.