Patients place great trust in their doctors to provide them with the information necessary to make sound decisions about medical treatment. When physicians fail to disclose material risks or alternatives, it can lead to unexpected harm and may give rise to an informed consent claim. A recent decision from a New York court highlights how courts assess motions for summary judgment in medical malpractice actions involving claims of lack of informed consent. If you or a loved one has experienced harm following a procedure, it is important to speak with a Rochester medical malpractice attorney to determine whether your rights were violated.
History of the Case
It is reported that the plaintiff underwent a laparoscopic cholecystectomy performed by the defendant surgeon. Following the procedure, the plaintiff allegedly developed a common bile duct injury, requiring additional medical intervention. The plaintiff subsequently commenced an action to recover damages for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant negligently performed the surgery, causing injury, and failed to provide adequate disclosure regarding the risks of the procedure, leaving her unable to make an informed decision about whether to undergo the operation.
Allegedly, the defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the surgical care met accepted standards and that the plaintiff had been properly counseled regarding the risks of the procedure. The defendant submitted expert testimony in support of his position, asserting that bile duct injury is a known risk of the surgery and does not necessarily reflect negligence. The trial court granted the defendant’s motion, dismissing the complaint in its entirety. The plaintiff appealed.
Evidence Establishing a Lack of Informed Consent Claim
On appeal, the court began by reiterating the legal principles governing summary judgment in medical malpractice actions. A defendant must establish, through competent evidence, either that there was no departure from the accepted standard of care or that any departure was not a proximate cause of the alleged injury. Regarding claims of lack of informed consent, the defendant must demonstrate that the patient was provided with sufficient information regarding the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the procedure.
The court determined that the defendant surgeon made a prima facie showing of entitlement to summary judgment by submitting an expert affidavit establishing that the surgical care conformed to accepted standards and that the risk of bile duct injury had been disclosed. However, the plaintiff opposed the motion with expert testimony raising triable issues of fact as to whether the defendant departed from accepted surgical practices and whether the disclosure provided to the plaintiff was adequate. The plaintiff’s expert opined that the surgical approach increased the risk of bile duct injury and that the plaintiff had not been fully informed of the likelihood and severity of this complication.
Because the parties presented conflicting expert opinions on critical issues of surgical technique and informed consent, the court concluded that summary judgment was not appropriate. The court therefore reversed the trial court’s order and reinstated the plaintiff’s claims for both medical malpractice and lack of informed consent.
Talk to a Skilled Rochester Medical Malpractice Attorney
When physicians fail to provide appropriate care or withhold important information, patients may suffer preventable harm. If you believe you were not fully informed about the risks of a medical procedure or were injured due to medical negligence, the skilled Rochester medical malpractice attorneys at DeFrancisco & Falgiatano Personal Injury Lawyers can aid you in the pursuit of justice. Contact us today at 833-200-2000 or online to schedule a free and confidential consultation.