Published on:

Plaintiffs Medical Malpractice Action Claims Lack of Informed Consent


Birth Injury 129

The plaintiffs of the case are Alexander Perez and Invannia Mieses- Perez. The defendants of the case are the University Hospital of Columbia and Cornell, Nicole Rodney, Jack Maidman M.D., Kimberly Mathis M.D., Sharmilee Bansal M.D., and Joshua Holden M.D. The case is being heard in the State of New York Supreme Court.

Case History

The medical malpracticeaction in this case involves the lack of informed consent in regard to a bilateral tubal litigation. This procedure was performed on the 16th of August in 2007 on Ms. Mieses-Perez. When she was pregnant the second time, Ms. Mieses-Perez informed her obstetrician, Dr. Maidman, that she did not want any more children.

Dr. Maidman discussed the option of tubal litigation with the plaintiff. He has testified that he informed Ms. Mieses-Perez that tubal litigation was irreversible and permanent and that there were other options for sterilization and that she could change her mind about having this surgery performed at any time before the surgery. A New York Injury Lawyer said he also states that he informed her that there were risks and complications of having this type of procedure. He claims that he fully explained how the procedure would work.

Ms. Mieses-Perez signed the Sterilization Consent form. A member of Dr. Maidman’s staff witnessed her signing the form.

Ms. Mieses-Perez had a normal pregnancy and had her child on the 18th of July, 2007. She was dismissed from the hospital two days after her child was born. She states that she was told that the tubal litigation procedure would take place immediately after delivery. However, Dr. Maidman was not there for the delivery and states that he had never planned on performing the surgery himself. A Queens Personal Injury Lawyer said his office provided a list of surgeons available for the surgery.

Dr. Holden was one of the surgeons on this list.

Dr. Bansal, who is a resident at the hospital and Dr. Holden who was to perform the surgery both state that they discussed the operation with Ms. Mieses-Perez and made it clear that the operation was permanent. She agreed to the surgery and signed the form of consent. Her husband was the witness of her signature.

There were complications during the procedure and the original plan for laparoscopic surgery had to be abandoned and an open laparotomy was performed. It was found that while trying to insert the trocar, the surgeons had nicked her aorta. The vascular team had to be called in to repair it.

Plaintiff’s Complaint

The plaintiff’s complaint raises a claim of lack of informed consent, medical malpractice, loss of services, and negligent granting of hospital privileges. A Bronx Personal Injury Lawyer said the plaintiffs state that they were not aware of the risks of the surgery, mainly that there was risk of her aorta being damaged and an open surgery that left scars.

Defendant’s Argument

Dr. Holden and Dr. Bansal offer support for their summary judgment in the form of an expert affirmation of the procedure that they performed and that Dr. Bansal only acted under the direction of Dr. Holden.

Case Discussion and Decision

In a medical malpractice action, a defendant that moves for summary judgment must show entitlement to this type of judgment without question. In this particular case, the defendants have not proven prima facie in this regard. It is ordered that the action will continue and the parties will continue with the pre-trial conference set for the 15th of March.

Stephen Bilkis & Associates can help in any type of legal case that you may be in. We have offices located throughout the city for your convenience. Contact us at any time to set up an appointment for a free consultation.

Contact Information