Goodreau v. State

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

Goodreau v. State

129 A.D.2d 978, 514 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45637

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedApril 3, 1987

DocketClaim No. 65044

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 129 A.D.2d 978 (Goodreau v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Goodreau v. State, 129 A.D.2d 978, 514 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45637 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1987).

Pincite

Opinion

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and claim dismissed. Memorandum: We conclude that, on the facts of this case, claimant has not proven his claim. To establish a cause of action based on lack of informed consent, the patient must prove: (1) that the physician did not fully inform him of the various alternatives and their risks; and (2) that a reasonably prudent person, fully informed, would not have consented to the treatment (Dries v Gregor, 72 AD2d 231, 236; Fogal v Genesee Hosp., 41 AD2d 468, 473). Plaintiff was diagnosed as having lymphocytic lymphosarcoma of the right inguinal lymph node. The proof established that this form of cancer, if untreated, can spread rapidly to other areas of the body and, if it reaches the internal organs, the likelihood of successful treatment is substantially reduced and chances of survival significantly lessened. Given the life-threatening nature of the illness, it is inconceivable that a prudent person would have declined treatment.

We conclude, therefore, that the trial court’s finding of liability was against the weight of the evidence and should be set aside (see, CPLR 5501; Larkin v State of New York, 84 AD2d 438). (Appeals from judgment of Court of Claims, McMahon, J.—medical malpractice.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Judgment unanimously reversed on the law without costs and claim dismissed. Memorandum: We conclude that, on the facts of this case, claimant has not proven his claim. To establish a cause of action based on lack of informed consent, the patient must prove: (1) that the physician did not fully inform him of the various alternatives and their risks; and (2) that a reasonably prudent person, fully informed, would not have consented to the treatment (Dries v Gregor, 72 AD2d 231, 236; Fogal v Genesee Hosp., 41 AD2d 468, 473). Plaintiff was diagnosed as having lymphocytic lymphosarcoma of the right inguinal lymph node. The proof established that this form of cancer, if untreated, can spread rapidly to other areas of the body and, if it reaches the internal organs, the likelihood of successful treatment is substantially reduced and chances of survival significantly lessened. Given the life-threatening nature of the illness, it is inconceivable that a prudent person would have declined treatment.

We conclude, therefore, that the trial court’s finding of liability was against the weight of the evidence and should be set aside (see, CPLR 5501; Larkin v State of New York, 84 AD2d 438). (Appeals from judgment of Court of Claims, McMahon, J.—medical malpractice.) Present—Doerr, J. P., Boomer, Green, Pine and Lawton, JJ.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

129 A.D.2d 978, 514 N.Y.S.2d 291, 1987 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 45637, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/goodreau-v-state-nyappdiv-1987.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack