How does patient consent affect a medical malpractice case?

The fact that you signed a consent form does not necessarily prohibit you from suing your doctor. In many jurisdictions, a signed consent form is merely a rebuttable presumption of informed consent. That means you can challenge the informed consent by proving certain elements.

A doctor must discuss the procedures and risks with a patient before the patient signs a consent form. State laws vary as to what risks must be disclosed by a doctor. Washington State uses the standard of would a normal patient in a similar situation have made a different decision if informed of the risk.

There are specific elements of proof that you must show in order to prove a failure of informed consent. First, you must show that your doctor failed to inform you of a material fact relating to your treatment. A material fact is a fact that a reasonably prudent patient in the same position as you would consider significant to deciding whether or not to consent to the proposed treatment.

Second, you must show that you consented to the treatment without being aware of or fully informed of the material fact. For example, did your doctor fail to inform you of the risk of experiencing extreme pain after the treatment. Third, you must show that a "reasonably prudent" patient under similar circumstances would not have consented to the treatment if informed of the material fact. In other words, would another patient have refused the same proposed treatment as yours if he/she had been informed about the extreme pain. Finally, you must show that the treatment proximately caused the injury to you.

Talk to a Medical Malpractice Lawyer, because some material facts regarding your treatment will have to be established by expert medical testimony.