Narrative Opinion Summary
In this case, an appeal was made against a Supreme Court order that denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice and informed consent lawsuit. The plaintiff, who was diagnosed with Hirschsprung's disease, alleged permanent erectile dysfunction following an open proctosigmoidectomy. The defendants' motion for summary judgment was supported by a medical expert's affidavit, which was submitted with the expert's name redacted, and was deemed inadmissible. The court held that expert anonymity during trial preparation does not extend to cases where expert opinions are utilized to resolve legal actions, emphasizing the necessity for transparency. The defendants failed to meet the initial burden to establish entitlement to summary judgment on the medical malpractice claim, as they did not demonstrate compliance with medical standards or lack of causation. Regarding the informed consent claim, the court found that the defendants did not sufficiently demonstrate that the physician disclosed the necessary risks and alternatives. The plaintiff's testimony that he was not warned of the potential risks and his claim that he would not have undergone the surgery if informed created a triable issue of fact. Consequently, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on both claims, with costs awarded to the plaintiff.
Legal Issues Addressed
Informed Consent in Medical Proceduressubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Defendants were unable to prove that the physician adequately informed the plaintiff of risks and alternatives, as required to dismiss the informed consent claim.
Reasoning: Regarding the informed consent claim, defendants were required to show that the physician disclosed the risks, benefits, and alternatives that a reasonable practitioner would disclose or that a reasonably informed patient would have chosen the procedure.
Material Factual Issues in Summary Judgmentsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The plaintiff's claim that he would have opted against the surgery if properly informed created a triable issue of fact, preventing summary judgment.
Reasoning: Additionally, plaintiff's assertion that he would have opted against surgery if properly informed created a triable issue of fact.
Medical Malpractice and Expert Testimony Requirementssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court emphasized the need for transparency and accountability in expert testimony when seeking summary judgment, noting that the defendants' redacted expert affidavit was insufficient.
Reasoning: To succeed in their motion, defendants needed to provide sufficient and admissible evidence showing no genuine issue of fact. The court noted that while the law allows some protections for medical expert anonymity during trial preparation, this does not extend to cases where expert opinions are used to resolve legal actions.
Summary Judgment in Medical Malpractice Claimssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: Defendants failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment as their submissions did not demonstrate either compliance with medical standards or lack of causation for the plaintiff's injury.
Reasoning: Defendants did not fulfill their initial burden to establish entitlement to summary judgment dismissing the negligence-based medical malpractice claim. They needed to demonstrate either no deviation from accepted medical standards or that any deviation did not cause injury.