Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
robot robotic surgery operation

Surgical robots have progressed from being new to being considered standard technology in medicine today. Learning to perform surgery through a virtual medium takes time. Learning how to coordinate one’s fingers, hands and feet to control a robot’s arms and “fingers” takes time. Robotic surgeons do not reach the cutting-edge of competency until performing enough procedures to learn the technique sufficiently well to have an acceptable complication rate, with each procedure having its own learning curve. To twist a phrase from the Wizard of Oz, patients need to know “Who is that man behind the robot?”

In Howard v. University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, 172 N.J. 537 (2002), the court considered whether a surgeon’s misrepresentation of experience can affect the validity of the consent obtained and negate informed consent. The court noted that New Jersey law had never previously held that doctors have a duty to detail their background and experience as a part of the required informed consent disclosure. A physician’s experience is generally not information that directly relates to the procedure itself or the known risks for complications and alternative treatments that must be disclosed. Although the court did not decide that question in Howard, it noted that a physician’s misrepresentation of qualifications could be a basis for lack of informed consent. A physician’s experience may be a material fact that a reasonably prudent person would want to know, if that actual level of experience has the capacity to directly increase the risk of harm from the procedure.

Misrepresented physician experience would have to significantly increase the risk of a procedure in order for it to affect the judgment of a reasonably prudent patient in an informed consent case. The court articulated a two-step proximate cause analysis for determining the facts under which a claim of lack of informed consent can be brought when physicians misrepresent qualifications: First, expert testimony must establish that the more limited experience or credentials could have substantially increased the patient’s risk of harm; second, the substantially increased risk would could cause a reasonably prudent person not to consent to the surgery. Id. at 556-59.

This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.

To view this content, please continue to their sites.

Not a Lexis Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.

For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]

Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

New Jersey Medical Malpractice LawBook

Comprehensive, yet clear and concise look at New Jersey law regarding medical malpractice liability.

Get More Information

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Copyright © 2021 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.