A New York appellate court has ruled in a significant medical malpractice case involving informed consent. The decision affects Jeanne Lehew, who claims she was not properly informed about the risks of spinal surgery performed by Kenneth Hansraj and New York Spine Surgery & Rehabilitation, PLLC. This ruling is important for patients seeking to understand their rights regarding informed consent in medical procedures.

The case, Lehew v. Hansraj, was decided by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York on November 12, 2026. The docket number for this case is 2023-09995. The court's decision reversed a previous order that had granted the defendants summary judgment on the informed consent claim, allowing Lehew's case to move forward.

Jeanne Lehew filed a lawsuit against Kenneth Hansraj and his practice after undergoing spinal surgery in January 2019. She alleged that the surgery resulted in complications and that she did not receive adequate information about the risks, benefits, and alternatives to the procedure. The defendants sought to dismiss the claims against them, arguing that Lehew had signed a consent form and had been informed about the procedure.

The case reached the appellate court after the Supreme Court of Dutchess County initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the informed consent claim in an order dated October 12, 2022. Following that, the defendants requested to reargue their motion, which led to the March 10, 2023 order that vacated the previous ruling. Lehew then appealed this decision.

The appellate court ruled that the defendants did not provide sufficient evidence to dismiss the informed consent claim. The judges emphasized that “the mere fact that a plaintiff signs a consent form does not establish a defendant's prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.” This means that simply having a signed consent form does not automatically protect medical professionals from liability if they failed to adequately inform the patient.

The court also highlighted that conflicting testimonies from both parties raised factual issues that needed to be resolved. Hansraj testified that he informed Lehew about the risks and benefits of the surgery, while Lehew claimed she was not adequately informed. This contradiction led the court to determine that there were triable issues of fact regarding the informed consent claim.

The ruling was made by a panel of judges including Colleen D. Duffy, Linda Christopher, Carl J. Landicino, and Laurence L. Love. They unanimously agreed to reverse the earlier decision and allow the case to proceed.

This ruling is significant for several reasons. It reinforces the importance of informed consent in medical procedures and clarifies that consent forms alone do not absolve healthcare providers from their duty to inform patients. It also highlights the need for clear communication between doctors and patients regarding treatment options and associated risks.

The outcome of this case may have broader implications for medical malpractice claims in New York. Patients who feel they were not adequately informed about their medical procedures may find this ruling encouraging as it affirms their rights to seek legal recourse. Additionally, it may prompt healthcare providers to review their practices regarding patient communication and informed consent.

As for what’s next, the case will return to the lower court for further proceedings. The appellate court's decision allows Lehew to continue her case against Hansraj and his practice, potentially leading to a trial where the facts will be examined in detail. There is no indication in the court filing that the defendants plan to appeal this ruling further, but they may still seek to resolve the case through settlement.