Whether Plaintiff, who was adequately informed by Defendant of all the risks involved in two separate medical operations, and who thereafter signed written consent forms stating that she understood those risks, has triable issues of fact as to her claims of lack of informed consent and medical malpractice to defeat Defendant's motion for summary judgment.

No. Upon a prima facie showing of informed consent and an adherence to acceptable medical practice, Defendant is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

Plaintiff was a patient of Defendant, a plastic surgeon, over a six-year period. During this time, Plaintiff had over fifty consultations with Defendant. Plaintiff underwent two procedures: a liposuction and a full abdominoplasty. Prior to each operation, Defendant discussed the relevant procedure with Plaintiff and advised her of the risks, including scarring. Acknowledging these risks, Plaintiff signed a consent form and indicated "I understand" on her hospital chart in her own handwriting. Following the last surgery, Plaintiff complained of an unsightly scar on her abdomen.

Plaintiff and her husband, derivatively, sued Defendant, alleging lack of informed consent and medical malpractice. Plaintiff claimed that her ability to consent was impaired because she suffered from Body Dysmorphic Disorder, a psychiatric condition. Further, Plaintiff claimed that Defendant should have recognized her condition and referred her to a psychiatrist before undertaking the plastic surgery procedures. Defendant moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied Defendant's motion, concluding that conflicting expert affidavits raised issues of fact on all claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision and certified the following question to the Court of Appeals: "Was the order of the Supreme Court, as affirmed by [the Appellate Division], properly made?" The Court of Appeals answered in the negative and held that because Defendant established a prima facie showing of informed consent, he was entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.

The Court determined that Plaintiff did not have triable issues of fact because Plaintiff failed to show that she suffered from any mental disorder or that she was mentally incapable of comprehending the risks and alternatives associated with the operations. Furthermore, since Plaintiff did not establish that Defendant failed to inform her of less invasive alternatives, Plaintiff's consent was not vitiated.

A defendant may succeed on a motion for summary judgment upon a prima facie showing of informed consent and an adherence to acceptable medical practice. Defendant submitted deposition testimony and medical records, which established that he had informed Plaintiff of the risks associated with the operations, including scarring, and that Plaintiff had signed written consent forms indicating that she understood those risks. Defendant also furnished a psychiatrist's report, which stated that Plaintiff did not suffer from any major psychiatric disorder which would impair her ability to consent. Moreover, Defendant produced an affidavit from a plastic surgeon, which stated that Defendant adequately informed Plaintiff of all risks and alternatives, and that in doing so, Defendant did not deviate from acceptable medical practice by not referring Plaintiff to a psychiatrist. Therefore, the Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment as a matter of law.