The state Supreme Court has declined to adopt a bright-line rule that informed-consent information is always irrelevant to a medical malpractice case, but reiterated that a patient’s consent to a procedure is irrelevant to the question of negligence.
In a unanimous decision in Brady v. Urbas, the Supreme Court agreed with the Superior Court that plaintiff Maria A. Brady should receive a new trial after a jury determined, upon reviewing her signed informed-consent forms, that Dr. William M. Urbas was not negligent in performing four surgeries on Brady’s toe.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
