You are here: / / QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE POTENTIAL...
,

QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE POTENTIAL COMPLICATIONS OF A DENTAL PROCEDURE, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING OF A CONSENT FORM (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department determined defendants’ (Herman’s and Capuano’s) motions for summary judgment in this dental malpractice action were properly denied. With respect to the lack-of-informed consent cause of action, despite plaintiff’s signing of a consent form, the deposition testimony raised a question of fact whether plaintiff was properly informed before signing it:

“To establish a cause of action to recover damages for malpractice based on lack of informed consent, a plaintiff must prove (1) that the person providing the professional treatment failed to disclose alternatives thereto and failed to inform the patient of reasonably foreseeable risks associated with the treatment, and the alternatives, that a reasonable medical practitioner would have disclosed in the same circumstances, (2) that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position would not have undergone the treatment if he or she had been fully informed, and (3) that the actual procedure performed for which there was no informed consent was the proximate cause of the injury” … . “The mere fact that the plaintiff signed a consent form does not establish the defendants’ prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law” … .

Here, both Herman and Capuano failed to establish their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law dismissing the cause of action alleging lack of informed consent. Although Herman and Capuano each submitted a consent form signed by the plaintiff for the respective procedures, they also submitted, in support of their respective motions, the plaintiff’s deposition testimony, which revealed factual disputes as to whether the plaintiff was properly advised before signing each of the forms … . Mathias v Capuano, 2017 NY Slip Op 06174, Second Dept 8-16-17

 

NEGLIGENCE (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE POTENTIAL COMPLICATIONS OF A DENTAL PROCEDURE, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING OF A CONSENT FORM (SECOND DEPT))/MEDICAL MALPRACTICE (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE POTENTIAL COMPLICATIONS OF A DENTAL PROCEDURE, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING OF A CONSENT FORM (SECOND DEPT))/DENTAL MALPRACTICE (INFORMED CONSENT, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE POTENTIAL COMPLICATIONS OF A DENTAL PROCEDURE, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING OF A CONSENT FORM (SECOND DEPT))/INFORMED CONSENT (DENTAL MALPRACTICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER PLAINTIFF WAS PROPERLY INFORMED OF THE POTENTIAL COMPLICATIONS OF A DENTAL PROCEDURE, DESPITE PLAINTIFF’S SIGNING OF A CONSENT FORM (SECOND DEPT))

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE CHILD’S IMMIGRANT VISA HAD BEEN LOST, THE PROOF DEMONSTRATED THAT THE CHILD MUST HAVE BEEN ISSUED THE APPROPRIATE VISA AND THAT, THEREFORE, PETITIONER WAS ENTITLED TO REGISTRATION OF A FOREIGN ADOPTION AND AN ORDER OF ADOPTION FOR THE CHILD (SECOND DEPT). ​
THE FACT THAT BOTH PLAINTIFF AND THE COW PLAINTIFF WAS WALKING FELL, WITH THE COW LANDING ON PLAINTIFF’S FOOT, DID NOT REQUIRE THAT PLAINTIFF SUE IN STRICT LIABILITY BASED UPON AN ANIMAL’S VICIOUS PROPENSITIES; PLAINTIFF RAISED A QUESTION OF FACT ABOUT WHETHER THE CAUSE OF THE FALL WAS THE SLIPPERY CONDITION OF THE FLOOR, NOT THE ACTIONS OF THE COW (SECOND DEPT).
THE PAVING CONTRACTOR FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE IT DID NOT LAUNCH AN INSTRUMENT OF HARM (A LIP OR HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL IN THE ROAD SURFACE) WHICH CAUSED PLAINTIFF’S SLIP AND FALL; THEREFORE THE CONTRACTOR DID NOT NEGATE THE APPLICABILITY OF THE ESPINAL EXCEPTION TO THE RULE THAT CONTRACTORS ARE GENERALLY NOT LIABLE TO THIRD PARTIES (SECOND DEPT).
Ineffective Assistance of Counsel Mandated New Trial—Difference Between Federal and State Ineffectiveness Criteria Explained
THE BANK’S PROOF OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS OF RPAPL 1304 IN THIS FORECLOSURE ACTION WAS INSUFFICIENT; THE BUSINESS RECORDS REFERRED TO IN THE AFFIDAVIT WERE NOT PRODUCED (SECOND DEPT).
Ad on Internet, Together With Communications With Florida Medical Group, Did Not Confer Long-Arm Jurisdiction Over the Group in a Malpractice Action Based On Surgery Done in Florida
THE USE OF POST-DISCHARGE AFFIDAVITS FROM TWO JURORS, CLAIMING JUROR CONFUSION, AS THE BASIS FOR THE MOTION TO SET ASIDE THE VERDICT WAS IMPROPER BECAUSE THERE WAS NO SUPPORT FOR THE CLAIMS IN THE RECORD; THE MOTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH PLAINTIFF MADE OUT A PRIMA FACIE CASE ON HIS LABOR LAW CAUSES OF ACTION, THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED AS PREMATURE; PLAINTIFF NOT YET DEPOSED.

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

NECESSARY EXPERT EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRESENTED BY THE PLAINTIFF IN THIS ARCHITECT... TESTIMONY AT THE 50-H HEARING COULD NOT BE THE BASIS FOR THE ASSERTION OF THEORIES...