Medical Malpractice – Just Because A Patient Signed An Informed Consent Form, Does Not Mean She Consented To The Doctor’s Negligence

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court reiterated the stance of the Superior Court on Tuesday that a patient’s consent to a medical procedure, despite being aware of the risks, is irrelevant to the question of whether the doctor was negligent.

In this case, the plaintiff had a defective toe condition on her right foot that caused her great pain and discomfort. The defendant doctor performed four total surgeries on the toe to alleviate the problem, each time explaining to the plaintiff the risks and complications involved and having her sign a form acknowledging her awareness of the possible outcomes. After all four surgeries were completed, the original problem still persisted and now the plaintiff had to deal with a significantly shorter toe which was less stable than before. The plaintiff then saw a second doctor who performed a single bone-graft operation which returned the toe almost completely back to its original length, restoring stability and reducing pain significantly.

The plaintiff lost at trial after the jury requested to look at the informed consent form she signed before each surgery. In her appeal, the plaintiff argued that evidence of consent only serves to confuse jurors because they might conclude that consent to the surgery was consent to the injury.

The Superior Court agreed with the plaintiff’s position, as did the Supreme Court, though it declined to adopt a bright-line rule, finding that the fact that a patient may have agreed to a procedure, does not have anything to do with whether the doctor fell below the standard of care in performing that procedure.

This is an important point for any person who is injured as a result of a procedure or undertaking performed by a professional where they signed an informed consent form before proceeding. In many cases, just because someone may be aware of the risks inherent in the activity, does not mean they have consented to the professional performing his duty below the ordinary standard of care.

Brady, M., et al v. Urbas D.P.M., W., Aplt. – No. 74 MAP 2014