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
OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS ARE NOT NECESSARY TO PROVE A SIDEWALK HEIGHT DIFFERENTIAL DEFECT IS TRIVIAL; HOWEVER, HERE THE DEPOSITION TESTIMONY, THE PHOTOGRAPHS AND THE OPINION OF A HUMAN FACTORS EXPERT (WHICH WAS NOT BASED ON OBJECTIVE MEASUREMENTS) DID NOT SUPPORT SUPREME COURT’S FINDING THE DEFECT IS TRIVIAL AS A MATTER OF LAW (SECOND DEPT).
REPLACING A SPEAKER IN CONJUNCTION WITH INSTALLING PANELING CONSTITUTED ALTERING, ALLEGATION THE LADDER SWAYED SUFFICIENT TO DEMONSTRATE THE FAILURE TO SECURE THE LADDER CAUSED THE FALL.
ELEVATOR REPAIR COVERED UNDER LABOR LAW 240(1), STATIONARY LADDER WAS A SAFETY DEVICE, QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER THE LADDER AFFORDED ADEQUATE PROTECTION.
IN THIS TRAFFIC-ACCIDENT DAMAGES TRIAL, THE DEFENDANT OFFERED PHOTOGRAPHS OF PLAINTIFF’S DAMAGED VEHICLE AND PLAINTIFF’S EMPLOYMENT RECORDS WHICH WERE ADMITTED INTO EVIDENCE WITHOUT PROPER FOUNDATIONS; NEW TRIAL ORDERED (SECOND DEPT).
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY PLAINTFF’S ATTORNEY ON CONFLICT OF INTEREST GROUNDS SHOULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED.
AN EXPERT IN A MED MAL CASE NEED NOT BE A SPECIALIST IN THE RELEVANT FIELD; HERE A PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN LAID A PROPER FOUNDATION FOR AN OPINION ABOUT PLAINTIFF’S CARE; PLAINTIFF ALLEGED DEFENDANTS NEGLIGENTLY FAILED TO DIAGNOSE HER HEART CONDITION (SECOND DEPT).
APPEAL FROM A DENIAL OF A MOTION TO REARGUE CONSIDERED DESPITE THE DISMISSAL OF THE APPEAL FROM THE INITIAL DENIAL OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE; PLAINTIFF’S LABOR LAW240(1) CAUSE OF ACTION STEMMING FROM A FALL INTO A PIT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED (SECOND DEPT).
THE TWO COUNTS OF ROBBERY THIRD WERE CONCURRENT INCLUSORY COUNTS OF THE TWO COUNTS OF ROBBERY SECOND; CONVICTIONS ON THE ROBBERY SECOND COUNTS REQUIRED VACATION OF THE CONVICTIONS ON THE ROBBERY THIRD COUNTS AND THE RELATED SENTENCES (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...