The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P went to her personal physician, Dr. Melvin Weinstein, complaining of a painful lump in her right breast. A mammogram and ultrasound study were performed, and Dr. Weinstein recommended that P see D, a specialist in breast surgery. After a manual examination of the breast, D recommended and, with Ps consent, performed a fine needle aspiration, which withdrew cells for pathological analysis. The pathologist diagnosed the right breast as 'suspicious for carcinoma; suggestively lobular in a background of proliferative breast lesion,' and recommended excision. It is also undisputed that before the suspicious lesion was removed, P signed a consent form authorizing D to perform a surgical procedure 'for the removal of a nodule in right breast upper outer quadrant,' in which plaintiff stated that the purpose of the procedure, its expected benefits, possible complications and risks, as well as possible alternatives, had been explained and that all of her questions had been answered fully and satisfactorily. P sued Ds claiming that because she was not told that the procedure would result in a 6.5-centimeter scar, she did not give her informed consent to the removal of what turned out to be a benign lump in her right breast. Ds moved forsummary judgment. P flatly denied D's assertion that he informedP of the risks involved, including scarring. She further stated that she told D that she wanted a second opinion and asked whether the procedure would leave a mark on her breast. According to P, d responded: 'No. You are getting hysterical; this is a routine procedure, and they do thousands at Lenox Hill Hospital.' P also claimed that Dr. Weinstein told her, 'You have to do it,' and that 'a punch shot biopsy is no big deal, there would be no cuts or anything visible.' P claims that she was led to believe that she was entering Lenox Hill for a biopsy and not a lumpectomy, and that she was assured by all the doctors that there would be no cut or scar. The court granted Ds’ motion, and P appealed.

The applicable rule of law for this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.