BONNEITA L. ELA v. CARY D. GLASTEIN, M.D., et al.

 

NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE

APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY

APPELLATE DIVISION

DOCKET NO. A-2860-05T32860-05T3

BONNEITA L. ELA,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

vs.

CARY D. GLASTEIN, M.D. and

SHORE ORTHOPAEDIC GROUP,

Defendants-Respondents,

and

MONMOUTH MEDICAL CENTER,

Defendant.
 

__________________________________

 

Submitted: September 20, 2006 - Decided October 19, 2006

Before Judges Cuff and Fuentes.

On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Monmouth County, Docket No. L-3463-99.

Arnold Jay Gold, attorney for appellant.

Amdur, Maggs, McGann & Shor, attorneys for respondents (Richard A. Amdur, of counsel and on the brief).

PER CURIAM

On October 7, 1993, plaintiff Bonneita L. Ela underwent a surgical procedure on her spine performed by defendant Cary D. Glastein, M.D. The procedure utilized pedicle screws. In her July 1999 complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant failed to advise her of the possibility that the device could break and that her medical condition could deteriorate.

The case was tried between November 28 and December 1, 2005, on the sole issue of informed consent. The jury found that plaintiff did not prove by a preponderance of the evidence that defendant failed to advise her of all the risks and alternatives that a reasonable person in her position would expect a doctor to disclose to enable the person to make an informed decision about her medical treatment. On appeal, plaintiff argues that the evidence demonstrates that defendant did not explain to her certain risks and alternative treatments. She also contends that the risks and alternatives set forth in the consent form are accepted by the medical community as elements of informed consent.

In essence, plaintiff contends that the verdict is against the weight of the evidence. We have examined the record in its entirety and are satisfied that the evidence in support of the jury verdict is not insufficient and that the arguments presented by plaintiff are without sufficient merit to warrant discussion in a written opinion. R. 2:11-3(e)(1)(B) and (E).

 
Affirmed.

(continued)

(continued)

2

A-2860-05T3

October 19, 2006