What is the test for a medical malpractice claim for battery rather than negligence?

We are guided in this conclusion by the other major California authority in this general area, which is Cobbs v. Grant (1972) 8 Cal.3d 229, 104 Cal.Rptr. 505, 502 P.2d 1. This case dealt with lack of informed consent to a surgical operation, the physician's neglect being his failure adequately to [214 Cal.App.3d 740] inform the patient of possible deleterious complications. In an opinion by Justice Mosk, the court recognized that consent given by a patient who has not been fully informed as to untoward consequences has been held in a number of jurisdictions to be defective, giving rise to a claim in battery. It concluded that this professional error more properly resembled negligence than the intentional tort of battery. In so doing the court noted a number of differences in procedure and proof between the two torts, including: expert opinion as to community standards is not required for battery; battery permits punitive damages; battery introduces a claim which may not be covered by insurance. (Id. at p. 240, 104 Cal.Rptr. 505, 502 P.2d 1.) We would add that battery requires no showing of "scienter" or any intent to do wrong--only an intent to cause the harmful unconsented touching. (Rest.2d Torts (1965) 13, p. 25.)