“A problem in informed consent arises when a physician or other therapist obtains a consent to treatment adequate to insulate him from prosecution for criminal assault and from liability in a civil assault or battery action, but when, nonetheless, the patient contends that consent would have been withheld if an adequate disclosure had been made concerning his condition as well as the potential dangers of and alternatives to the proposed procedure or therapy.”
How later courts described this case
- “A problem in informed consent arises when a physician or other therapist obtains a consent to treatment adequate to insulate him from prosecution for criminal assault and from liability in a civil assault or battery action, but when, nonetheless, the patient contends that consent would have been withheld if an adequate disclosure had been made concerning his condition as well as the potential dangers of and alternatives to the proposed procedure or therapy.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Pizzuto, J. P. (concurring).
I concur in the conclusion that optometrists and other health care professionals not named in Public Health Law § 2805-d remain bound by their traditional common-law duty to obtain a patient’s informed consent.
Florio, J., concurs with Friedmann, J.; Pizzuto, J. P., and Hart, J., concur in a separate opinion by Pizzuto, J. P.
Ordered that the order is reversed insofar as appealed from, with costs, the branch of the cross motion which was to dismiss the plaintiff’s fourth cause of action is denied, and the fourth cause of action is reinstated.