Court Upholds Malpractice General Waiver in Cosmetic Procedure Recovery Case


On Wednesday the court issued an opinion in a case against NYC Medical Practice P.C. et al. The case, filed in the Southern District of New York, dealt with a case of medical malpractice and the validity of a general release.

The plaintiff received a cosmetic procedure and returned home to Ohio for recovery. The surgical site did not heal well and the patient ended up receiving further treatment and surgery to remediate the later effects. After receiving further treatment, the patient reached out to the defendant original provider and demanded a refund after communicating details of the further treatment required. The defendant agreed to provide a refund after the plaintiff signed a waiver. Later the plaintiff filed suit for medical malpractice, which the defendant moved for dismissal due to the general waiver of liability.

The plaintiff argued that the general waiver was invalid because it was signed while she was still receiving treatment to remediate the medical issues, while she was under the influence of narcotic drugs, and because she had not read and comprehended the waiver’s import as to later malpractice actions.

The court noted that while the patient might have still been receiving treatment, she had not communicated that to the defendants, so there was no means for the defendant to offer the waiver at a more appropriate time. The court also noted that the plaintiff was lucid and clear enough to make detailed demands of the defendant and appeared to be competent to the notary who witnessed the document. Finally, the court clearly noted that the plaintiff had advice regarding the form and that the obligation to understand the terms of a contract or a waiver is on the part of the parties to the document. The court clearly noted that “The resolution of this medical malpractice case turns on the application of the sensible (but often overlooked) aphorism:  read the fine print before signing a contract.”

The plaintiff is represented by Blau Leonard Law Group LLC. The defendants are represented by Lurie Strupinsky LLP.