Lynn G. v. Hugo, 96 N.Y.2d 306 (2001)

In a medical malpractice case alleging lack of informed consent for cosmetic surgery, a plaintiff must present sufficient evidence that they suffered from a mental condition impairing their capacity to consent and that the physician failed to disclose reasonable alternative treatments to overcome a motion for summary judgment.

Summary

Lynn G. sued Dr. Norman Hugo for medical malpractice and lack of informed consent regarding a liposuction and abdominoplasty. She claimed she suffered from Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD), impairing her ability to consent, and that Dr. Hugo failed to inform her of less invasive alternatives. The New York Court of Appeals reversed the lower courts’ denial of summary judgment for Dr. Hugo, holding that Lynn G. failed to provide sufficient evidence of BDD or that Dr. Hugo failed to disclose reasonable alternatives, thus failing to raise a triable issue of fact.

Facts

Lynn G. consulted Dr. Hugo, a plastic surgeon, about 50 times over six years for various cosmetic procedures, including eyelid surgery and facial liposuctions. She underwent liposuction to correct her stomach “pouch”. Prior to the liposuction, Dr. Hugo discussed the risks, including scarring, and Lynn G. signed a consent form. The liposuction was unsuccessful, leading Lynn G. to undergo a full abdominoplasty. Dr. Hugo informed her of the risks, including “ugly scars,” and she signed another consent form. Lynn G. later complained about an unsightly scar.

Procedural History

Lynn G. and her husband sued Dr. Hugo, alleging lack of informed consent and medical malpractice. The Supreme Court denied Dr. Hugo’s motion for summary judgment, finding factual issues. The Appellate Division affirmed. The New York Court of Appeals reversed, granting Dr. Hugo’s motion for summary judgment.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Lynn G. presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact that she lacked the capacity to consent to the cosmetic procedures due to Body Dysmorphic Disorder (BDD)?

2. Whether Lynn G. presented sufficient evidence to raise a triable issue of fact that Dr. Hugo failed to adequately inform her of less invasive alternatives to the abdominoplasty?

Holding

1. No, because Lynn G. failed to provide sufficient evidence that she suffered from BDD at the time of the surgeries or that her mental state impaired her ability to consent.

2. No, because Lynn G. failed to present sufficient evidence that Dr. Hugo did not inform her of less invasive alternatives; her expert’s assertions were conclusory, and her own testimony indicated that Dr. Hugo discussed those options.

Court’s Reasoning

The court emphasized that Dr. Hugo made a prima facie showing of informed consent by demonstrating he informed Lynn G. of the risks and she signed consent forms. To defeat summary judgment, Lynn G. needed to show a genuine issue of material fact. The court found her evidence lacking. Regarding BDD, the court noted Lynn G.’s experts only surmised she was “consistent with a form of” BDD, which was insufficient. The court highlighted the absence of proof that Lynn G. actually suffered from BDD at the time of the surgeries. The court pointed out, “Such unsubstantiated assertions or speculations are, of course, insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.” Regarding less invasive alternatives, the court dismissed Lynn G.’s expert’s affidavit as conclusory. Moreover, Lynn G.’s deposition revealed Dr. Hugo did discuss these options. The court also rejected Lynn G.’s argument that Dr. Hugo was negligent in combining liposuction and an abdominoplasty, since the procedures were spaced nine months apart.