for the jury was whether Dr. Cooper consented, and not whether a battery had been committed. Id. at 4-6. The trial court again overruled Appellants’ objection. Following deliberations, the jury answered the aforementioned inquiry in the negative, finding that no battery had been committed. The jury further found in favor of Appellees on all remaining claims. On appeal, Appellants raised various issues. Relevant here is their challenge to the jury instruction on lack of consent. The trial court explained in its Pa.R.A.P. 1925(a) opinion that there is no separate tort of lack of consent, and that an action based on the absence of a patient’s consent constitutes a battery. Trial Court Opinion, dated 10/15/09, at 8-9 (citing Montgomery v. Bazaz-Sehgal, 568 Pa. 574, 798 A.2d 742 (2002) (<HOLDING>)). Thus, the trial court found that its
holding that battery is an inherently included offense of aggravated battery holding that under maryland common law an assault is an attempted battery an actual battery or a combination of the two holding that an operation without the patients consent sounds in battery holding that in pennsylvania lack of informed consent claims utilize a battery standard that is a physician commits battery where the patient does not consent to the procedure on his person thus constituting a harmful or offensive contact holding that a patient who endures an operation without his consent may base his action on a tortious battery