Practice point: To establish the cause of action, 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 lack of informed consent is a proximate cause of the injury.
Student note:
Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the
parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions.
Case: Magel v.
John T. Mather Mem. Hosp., NY Slip Op 03813 (2d Dept. 2012).
Tuesday’s issue:
Regulating discovery.
