A New York appellate court has reinstated a medical malpractice claim against surgeon Kenneth Hansraj, allowing the case to move forward. The decision, issued on November 12, 2026, affects patients who may have experienced similar issues with medical procedures and underscores the importance of informed consent in surgical practices.

The case, Lehew v. Hansraj, revolves around allegations that Hansraj performed unnecessary spinal surgery on Jeanne Lehew in January 2019, which allegedly worsened her existing medical condition. The Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York ruled that there were sufficient grounds for the case to continue, reversing a lower court's decision that had dismissed the malpractice claim.

Background

Jeanne Lehew filed the lawsuit against Kenneth Hansraj and his practice, New York Spine Surgery & Rehabilitation, PLLC, after undergoing spinal surgery that she claims was not warranted. According to her allegations, the surgery not only failed to alleviate her symptoms but also exacerbated her preexisting condition.

The case reached the Appellate Division after the Supreme Court in Dutchess County granted a motion from Hansraj and his practice to dismiss Lehew's medical malpractice claim. The lower court found that the defendants had met their burden of proof, showing that they did not deviate from accepted medical practices. Lehew appealed this decision, arguing that there was evidence to support her claims.

The Ruling

The Appellate Division ruled in favor of Lehew, stating that the lower court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants. The judges noted, "the affidavit of the plaintiff's expert raised a triable issue of fact in opposition" to the defendants' claims. This means that Lehew's expert provided sufficient evidence to challenge the assertion that the surgery was appropriate.

The court emphasized that the defendants had to prove there was no departure from accepted medical practices or that any alleged departure did not cause the plaintiff's injuries. The judges stated, "Summary judgment is not appropriate in a medical malpractice action where the parties adduce conflicting medical expert opinions." This ruling indicates that when there are differing expert opinions about medical practices, the case should proceed to trial rather than be dismissed.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for medical malpractice cases in New York. It reaffirms that patients have the right to challenge medical decisions made by healthcare providers, especially when there are conflicting opinions from medical experts. The decision also highlights the critical role of informed consent, as patients must be fully aware of the risks and benefits of surgical procedures.

The outcome of this case may encourage other patients who feel they have been wronged by medical professionals to seek legal recourse. It also serves as a reminder to healthcare providers about the importance of adhering to accepted medical practices and ensuring that patients are adequately informed before undergoing procedures.

What's Next

The case will now return to the lower court for further proceedings. It is unclear whether the defendants will seek to appeal the Appellate Division's ruling to a higher court. There are no related cases pending at this time.