There are risks associated with most medical care, and doctors typically inform their patients of such risks before proceeding with treatment. Simply because a physician informs their patient of the potential complications that could arise during a procedure does not mean that they cannot be held liable for medical malpractice, though. Further, in most instances, the fact that a doctor obtained a patient’s informed consent is irrelevant to the issue of whether the doctor was negligent, as discussed in a recent Maryland medical malpractice matter. If you sustained injuries during an improperly performed procedure, you might be owed compensation, and you should consult a Maryland medical malpractice attorney.
The Facts of the Case
It is alleged that the defendant performed a routine colonoscopy on the plaintiff. During the procedure, the defendant perforated the plaintiff’s colon. The plaintiff subsequently needed to undergo numerous surgeries, had permanent symptoms of short bowel syndrome and suffered other injuries. As such, he instituted a medical malpractice lawsuit against the defendant. Prior to trial, the plaintiff moved to preclude the defendant from introducing or discussing the doctrine of informed consent on the grounds that it was legally irrelevant, as he was not asserting an informed consent claim.
It is reported that the defendant argued that the doctrine of informed consent was relevant to his defense of assumption of the risk. The court granted the plaintiff’s motion, and following a trial, the jury found in favor of the plaintiff, awarding him the cost of his medical care and over $600,000 in noneconomic damages. The defendant appealed, arguing that the trial court erred in granting the plaintiff’s motion. Continue Reading ›