Boutureira v Grotas
Categories
Attorneys and Parties
Brief Summary
Medical malpractice and lack of informed consent arising from urological treatment for Peyronie's disease, specifically whether a plication surgery should have been performed while the disease was allegedly in an acute phase and whether the patient was adequately informed of risks, benefits, and alternatives.
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint in its entirety.
The Appellate Division reversed the portion of the order that dismissed the medical malpractice and lack of informed consent claims insofar as they were based on the May 3, 2019 plication surgery.
The defendants failed to make a prima facie showing that there was no departure from accepted medical practice, no causation, and adequate informed consent. Their submissions did not eliminate triable issues of fact as to whether the plaintiff's Peyronie's disease was in an acute phase when surgery was performed and whether the plaintiff received sufficient disclosure about the risks, benefits, and alternatives under those circumstances.
Background
In September 2018, Ricardo Boutureira sought treatment from Aaron B. Grotas, a urologist, for Peyronie's disease. On May 3, 2019, Grotas performed a plication surgery on the plaintiff's penis to correct curvature and related conditions. The plaintiff later sued Grotas and his medical practice for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent, alleging among other things that the surgery was contraindicated because his Peyronie's disease was still in an acute phase. The complaint also involved claims relating to postsurgery shock-wave therapy.
Lower Court Decision
The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment to the defendants and dismissed the entire complaint, accepting the defendants' position that the treatment did not depart from good and accepted medical practice and that the claims lacked merit.
Appellate Division Reversal
The Appellate Division modified the order by reinstating the claims based on the May 3, 2019 plication surgery. It held that the defendants' expert affirmation and deposition testimony did not resolve factual issues regarding whether the plaintiff's disease was in an acute phase, a circumstance under which plication surgery would not be recommended. The court also held that the defendants failed to show, as a matter of law, that the plaintiff received sufficient information about the risks, benefits, and alternatives to surgery in that clinical context. The remainder of the order was affirmed, leaving dismissed the other aspects of the complaint.
Legal Significance
The decision reinforces that in medical malpractice cases, defendants moving for summary judgment must specifically rebut the malpractice theories pleaded in the bill of particulars and must eliminate material factual disputes. It also underscores that a signed consent form alone does not establish informed consent as a matter of law. If defendants fail to meet their prima facie burden, summary judgment must be denied regardless of the strength of the plaintiff's opposition.
A defendant physician cannot obtain summary judgment on malpractice and informed consent claims where the record leaves open factual questions about whether surgery was medically appropriate at the time it was performed and whether the patient was fully informed about relevant risks and alternatives.