Before medical malpractice cases reach trial, Plaintiffs will typically argue that there is an iron clad link between the doctor’s alleged lack of informed consent disclosure and their client’s injury:
“If the doctor knew there was a chance this procedure could lead to permanent disability and didn’t say so, how could my client make an informed decision?”
Informed consent cases, by nature, often revolve around whether a physician disclosed all material risks of a procedure. But another, often overlooked, aspect that can make or break these claims is the causal link between the alleged lack of disclosure and the patient’s injury. A claim cannot succeed unless the plaintiff can prove that the undisclosed risk actually materialized and directly caused their harm.
Recently, we defended a case in which the plaintiff claimed they weren’t properly informed about certain risks tied to a medical procedure. However, the most critical risk — the one they argued wasn’t disclosed — never came to pass. We argued that without that risk materializing, there could be no causal link between the alleged lack of informed consent and the plaintiff’s injuries. Our strategic focus on the causal connection enabled us to dismantle the plaintiff’s claim and secure summary judgment.
This experience highlights a critical lesson for litigators: don’t lose sight of causation in any case. It’s not enough to scrutinize the information that was or wasn’t disclosed; you must also ask whether the undisclosed risks actually led to the patient’s injury. If the link between the risk and the injury is missing, the claim is likely to fail, offering a key opportunity to resolve the case early. Keeping this in mind can be a game-changer in defending against informed consent allegations.
If you need assistance with your legal claims, our experienced trial attorneys are here to help.