You are here: / / THE “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS MEDICAL...
,

THE “LACK OF INFORMED CONSENT” CAUSE OF ACTION IN THIS MEDICAL MALPRACTICE SUIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE PLAINTIFF INSISTED ON THE PROCEDURE DESPITE THE RISKS OR DECLINED ANY PROFFERED EXPLANATION OF THE RISKS (SECOND DEPT).

The Second Department, reversing (modifying) Supreme Court) determined the “lack of informed consent” to back surgery (implantation of an X-STOP device) should not have been dismissed:

As a defense to a medical malpractice action premised upon lack of informed consent, a practitioner may proffer evidence that “the patient assured the medical . . . practitioner that he [or she] would undergo the treatment, procedure or diagnosis regardless of the risk involved, or the patient assured the medical . . . practitioner that he [or she] did not want to be informed of the matters to which he [or she] would be entitled to be informed” (Public Health Law § 2805-d[4][b]). Here, although [plaintiff’s] deposition testimony made clear that he deferred to [defendant surgeon’s] judgment as to whether he should undergo a procedure and, if so, which procedure, it does not establish that [plaintiff] either insisted on the procedure to implant the X-STOP devices, rather than other treatment options, regardless of risk, or that he refused any proffered advice. On the contrary, the record establishes that, far from insisting on a contraindicated procedure, [plaintiff] relied upon [defendant surgeon’s] professional expertise in determining the correct course of treatment. Likewise, although [defendant surgeon’s] testimony establishes that he explained the benefits of performing the procedure to implant the X-STOP devices rather than a laminectomy, he did not testify that he offered, or that [plaintiff] declined, any proffered explanation of the risks and limitations of the procedure to implant the X-STOP devices. Mirshah v Obedian, 2021 NY Slip Op 06994, Second Dept 12-15-21

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO SERVE A DEFENDANT SHOULD HAVE BEEN DENIED AND THE MOTION TO EXTEND TIME TO SERVE GRANTED, THE MOTION TO DISMISS ON FORUM NON COVENIENS GROUNDS WAS PROPERLY GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
THE EXPERTS WHO TESTIFIED THE SEIZED SUBSTANCES CONTAINED HEROIN OR COCAINE RELIED ON COMPARISONS WITH STANDARD SAMPLES IN THEIR LABS BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS OFFERED TO DEMONSTRATE THE ACCURACY OF THE SAMPLES; THEREFORE THE EXPERTS’ OPINIONS RELIED ON EVIDENCE NOT IN THE RECORD; CONVICTIONS REVERSED (SECOND DEPT).
MOTION TO EXTEND TIME FOR SERVICE SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED (SECOND DEPT).
AUTO REPAIR SHOP OWED NO DUTY TO PLAINTIFF WHO HAD BORROWED THE CAR WHICH HAD BEEN REPAIRED FOR THE OWNER, SINCE NO ESPINAL FACTORS WERE ALLEGED DEFENDANT REPAIR SHOP DID NOT NEED TO NEGATE THOSE FACOTRS IN ITS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT.
THE 21-YEAR DELAY BETWEEN THE CRIME AND DEFENDANT’S ARREST DID NOT VIOLATE DEFENDANT’S SPEEDY-TRIAL RIGHTS (SECOND DEPT).
THE BANK DID NOT PROVE IT HAD STANDING TO BRING THE FORECLOSURE ACTION (SECOND DEPT).
THE KILLING OF ONE PERSON AND WOUNDING OF TWO BY FIRING 13 SHOTS INTO A GROUP OF PEOPLE FROM A ROOFTOP WERE NOT SEPARATE AND DISTINCT OFFENSES, SENTENCES MUST BE CONCURRENT (SECOND DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE RPAPL 1304 FORECLOSURE NOTICE, TO BE VALID, MUST ACCURATELY STATE THE DEFAULT AMOUNT AND THE LENGTH OF TIME THE BORROWER HAS BEEN IN DEFAULT, THERE WAS NO SHOWING HERE THE STATED AMOUNT WAS INACCURATE; THE BANK DID NOT DEMONSTRATE IT WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE NOTE AT THE TIME THE ACTION WAS COMMENCED AND THEREFORE DID NOT DEMONSTRATE STANDING TO FORECLOSE; THE EVIDENCE OF A MERGER SUBMITTED IN REPLY COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED ON THE STANDING ISSUE (SECOND DEPT).

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

DEFENDANTS DIRECTED PLAINTIFF TO REMOVE PAINT BY SPRAYING LACQUER WHICH APPARENTLY... THE NYC WATER BOARD DETERMINED PETITIONER WAS NOT ENTITLED TO A RETROACTIVE...