Most patients have experienced sitting in a medical office or hospital and being handed a stack of paperwork to sign. Before surgery, the paperwork may be even more extensive. There are forms describing the procedure, anesthesia, medications, hospital policies, financial responsibilities, and potential complications.
It can be tempting to think of informed consent as simply another signature in that stack of paperwork. But informed consent is supposed to mean much more.
Before undergoing a medical procedure, patients generally have the right to understand what their doctor plans to do, the significant risks involved, reasonable alternatives, and what could happen if they choose not to proceed. Only then can a patient meaningfully participate in decisions about their own medical care.
Florida law specifically recognizes those rights. The Florida Patient’s Bill of Rights and Responsibilities states that patients have rights to information about their diagnosis, planned course of treatment, alternatives, risks, and prognosis, as well as rights involving treatment decisions. Florida also has a separate Florida Medical Consent Law that addresses informed consent in medical treatment.
Understanding those rights can become particularly important when something goes wrong and a patient discovers that the procedure performed, the risks involved, or the available alternatives were different from what they believed they had agreed to.
What Does “Informed Consent” Actually Mean?
At its heart, informed consent is about giving patients enough information to meaningfully participate in decisions about their own medical care.
Under Florida Statute §381.026, the Legislature specifically recognizes the importance of providing patients with information so they can make informed decisions after considering their condition, available treatment alternatives, and substantial risks and hazards of treatment.
Florida’s Medical Consent Law, §766.103, provides additional detail about informed consent in the context of a legal claim. The law generally looks at whether the process of obtaining consent met accepted medical standards and whether a reasonable person, based on the information provided, would have a general understanding of:
- the procedure being proposed,
- medically acceptable alternatives,
- and the substantial risks and hazards associated with the proposed treatment.
A doctor is not necessarily required to describe every remote possibility that could ever occur. Medicine carries uncertainty, and almost every procedure involves some degree of risk. The question is whether the patient received appropriate information about the proposed treatment, alternatives, and substantial recognized risks so that the patient could make an informed decision.
Informed consent, therefore, is not simply about whether a patient said “yes.” It is also about what the patient understood when making that decision.
Does Signing a Consent Form Mean You Gave Informed Consent?
This is where informed consent becomes more complicated.
Many patients assume that once they sign a consent form, they have given up the ability to later question whether they were properly informed.
Under Florida law, a written consent form can carry significant legal weight. When written consent satisfies the statutory requirements and is validly signed by a patient who is mentally and physically competent to give consent—or by another authorized person—it creates what the law calls a “rebuttable presumption” of valid consent.
In ordinary language, that means the signed form is important evidence that valid consent was obtained, but it does not necessarily end every possible question surrounding what occurred.
The underlying information and circumstances can still matter.
Imagine, for example, that a patient agrees to surgery after being appropriately told there is a recognized risk of infection. If an infection later develops despite appropriate medical care, the fact that a known complication occurred does not automatically mean malpractice occurred.
That is very different from a patient alleging that a substantially different procedure was performed from the one discussed and authorized.
A signature matters. So does the conversation that came before it.
A 2025 Florida Lawsuit Shows Why the Details Matter
A Florida lawsuit filed in 2025 provides an interesting example of the difference between consenting to medical treatment generally and consenting to the particular procedure a patient believes will be performed.
According to reporting by Florida Record, Carrie Causey McShan filed a lawsuit in Orange County alleging that she and her pain-management physician had agreed that a spinal cord stimulator would be implanted using what she described as the “paddle method.”
McShan alleged that when she underwent surgery, the device was instead implanted using a different, percutaneous method without her consent. Her complaint also alleged that the originally contemplated method required a neurosurgeon to be present and that no neurosurgeon was in the operating room. She brought claims including negligence and medical battery.
Importantly, these are allegations made by the patient in a lawsuit, not judicial findings that the defendants did anything wrong. The defendants are entitled to contest the claims, and the allegations must be evaluated through the legal process.
But the dispute illustrates an important issue for patients: consenting to a medical objective is not necessarily the same thing as agreeing to every possible method of accomplishing it.
A patient may agree to have a medical device implanted, for example, while the particular surgical technique, its risks, available alternatives, and who will perform the procedure remain important parts of the conversation.
Another Florida Case Raises Questions About Risks and Alternatives
A separate 2025 Florida appellate case provides another example of the types of allegations that can arise over informed consent.
In Angel Tomas v. Dmitry Sandler, DPM, et al., a patient underwent a total ankle replacement at Mariners Hospital. According to the appellate opinion, he subsequently experienced loss of ankle function, chronic infection, osteomyelitis, and other complications.
An expert who reviewed the case alleged numerous departures from the standard of care. Among them were allegations that the patient had not been adequately informed about recognized and foreseeable surgical risks, that ankle fusion had not been adequately discussed as an alternative to ankle replacement, and that the patient had not been sufficiently advised about considerations associated with the surgery.
The appellate court was primarily addressing procedural and pre-suit issues. It was not deciding that the physician failed to obtain informed consent, an important distinction when discussing the case.
Still, the allegations provide a useful real-world example of why informed consent extends beyond simply knowing the name of a procedure. For a patient facing major surgery, understanding reasonable alternatives may be just as important as understanding the operation being recommended.
When a Known Risk Happens, Is That Lack of Informed Consent?
Not necessarily.
This distinction is important because a poor medical outcome does not automatically establish either medical malpractice or lack of informed consent.
Suppose a physician appropriately explains that a particular surgery carries a recognized risk of nerve damage. The patient understands the risk, elects to proceed, and unfortunately experiences nerve damage even though the procedure was performed appropriately.
The fact that a known complication occurred does not, by itself, mean the physician was negligent.
An informed-consent issue is different. Questions may arise when a patient alleges that a substantial recognized risk was not appropriately disclosed, a medically acceptable alternative was not explained, or the procedure performed was materially different from what the patient believed had been authorized.
A medical malpractice case may also involve multiple issues. A patient might allege both that important information was not adequately provided before treatment and that the procedure itself was negligently performed.
Determining what actually occurred can require careful review of medical records, consent documents, physician notes, testimony, and the medical standards applicable to the particular procedure.
Informed Consent in an Emergency: The Pitt Brings the Issue to Life
Anyone watching the popular medical drama The Pitt has seen how complicated medical decision-making can become when every second matters. The series follows healthcare professionals working through a 15-hour shift in the emergency department of a fictional Pittsburgh hospital, with each episode depicting one hour of that shift.
The show frequently places doctors, patients, and families in situations familiar to anyone who has spent time in an emergency room: a serious medical problem has been identified, treatment may need to happen quickly, and difficult decisions must be made under enormous pressure.
Those scenes help illustrate something that can be difficult to appreciate when thinking about informed consent only in the context of scheduled surgery. A patient preparing for an elective procedure may have days or weeks to consider options and ask questions. In an emergency room, doctors may have only minutes—or sometimes seconds—to determine what treatment is necessary and communicate with a patient or family.
The Pitt is fictional, and it should not be viewed as a source of medical or legal guidance. But its depiction of the urgency surrounding emergency medicine provides a relatable example of why informed consent is much more than paperwork.
Whether a patient has weeks to consider an elective operation or only minutes to make a potentially life-saving decision, communication between medical providers, patients, and families remains critically important whenever circumstances allow.
What About Medical Emergencies?
Florida law recognizes that genuine medical emergencies can present very different circumstances.
A patient who arrives unconscious after a serious accident obviously may not be able to participate in the same type of informed discussion that would occur before a scheduled procedure.
Florida law recognizes circumstances in which emergency medical treatment may proceed when a patient is incapable of providing informed consent and is experiencing an emergency medical condition. The treatment under that provision is limited to reasonable examination and treatment necessary to address or stabilize the emergency. Additional information can be reviewed through Florida Statute §401.445.
That reflects a practical reality: sometimes medical professionals must act immediately to save a patient’s life or prevent serious harm.
But emergency circumstances are very different from routine or elective treatment, where patients generally have time to understand the proposed course of care, ask questions, consider alternatives, and decide whether to proceed.
A Florida Tragedy Leads to Proposed Changes in Surgical Consent
Questions surrounding surgical safety and consent became deeply personal in Florida following the death of Hillary Brown, a Pensacola-area woman who suffered cardiac arrest while undergoing procedures performed by her plastic-surgeon husband, Dr. Benjamin Brown, in his medical office.
According to the Associated Press, Hillary Brown became unresponsive during procedures at the clinic in November 2023 and died approximately one week later. AP reported that the Florida Department of Health subsequently sought disciplinary action against Dr. Brown and that he was charged with manslaughter by culpable negligence. His defense attorney said he intended to plead not guilty and fight the allegations.
Her death later inspired proposed Florida legislation known as “Hillary’s Law.”
Among other office-surgery protections, Florida Senate Bill 424 would have prohibited physicians from altering or changing a surgical consent form after a patient had signed it or after sedating medication had been administered. The legislation also proposed additional standards governing office surgeries and procedures performed on immediate family members.
The bill ultimately died in the Senate Health Policy Committee in 2025.
Although it did not become law, the proposal highlighted an important principle behind informed consent: meaningful decisions about medical treatment should occur while a patient is capable of understanding information, asking questions, and deciding whether to proceed.
Florida’s New Stem-Cell Law Puts Informed Consent in the Spotlight
Another Florida development in 2025 demonstrates informed consent from a different perspective.
Florida lawmakers passed legislation allowing physicians, under specified conditions, to provide certain stem-cell therapies that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Senate Bill 1768 became law with an effective date of July 1, 2025.
The informed-consent requirements are particularly noteworthy.
Under the law, physicians providing covered stem-cell therapies must obtain signed informed consent before treatment. According to the Florida Senate’s official bill summary, patients must be informed about the nature and purpose of the treatment and that the therapy has not been approved by the FDA. The disclosure must also address anticipated results, recognized risks and complications, potential benefits, and alternatives—including the option of receiving no treatment.
The law provides a useful real-world example of what informed consent is intended to accomplish.
When patients are considering a treatment—particularly one involving significant uncertainty—they should have meaningful information about what is being proposed, what risks may exist, what potential benefits are expected, and what other choices are available.
Questions Patients Can Ask Before a Procedure
Patients should feel comfortable asking questions before agreeing to significant medical treatment. A physician recommending a procedure should expect patients to want to understand what is going to happen and why.
Depending on the circumstances, useful questions may include:
- What exactly are you planning to do?
- Why are you recommending this procedure?
- What are the most significant risks?
- What other reasonable treatment options are available?
- What happens if I choose not to have the procedure now?
- Who will actually perform the procedure?
- Could the surgical plan change once the procedure begins?
- Under what circumstances would you perform something different from what we have discussed?
- What should I expect during recovery?
- What complications should cause me to seek immediate medical attention?
Patients may also want to request copies of consent forms and other important medical documents for their own records.
Asking questions does not make someone a difficult patient. It is part of participating in your own medical care.
When Something Happens That You Did Not Expect
After a procedure, patients sometimes learn that something happened that they do not remember discussing beforehand. That discovery might come from a conversation with the surgeon, a pathology report, an operative note, or even a subsequent physician reviewing the records.
An unexpected outcome does not necessarily mean a patient lacked informed consent. Likewise, a procedure becoming more complicated than expected does not automatically mean a physician acted improperly.
But if a patient believes a different procedure was performed, a significant risk was never discussed, or an important treatment alternative was not explained, it may be reasonable to ask questions and obtain the relevant records.
Operative reports, consent forms, pre-operative notes, imaging, pathology records, anesthesia records, and communications between providers can help establish what was planned, what was discussed, and what actually occurred.
These questions can become particularly important when a complication results in additional surgery, permanent injury, prolonged hospitalization, or other significant consequences.
Informed Consent Is Ultimately About Patient Choice
The medical and legal terminology surrounding informed consent can make the concept sound complicated. Its underlying purpose is much easier to understand.
Patients should have appropriate information before making important decisions about their medical care.
Florida’s Patient’s Bill of Rights reflects that principle by recognizing the importance of patients receiving information about their condition, available treatment alternatives, and substantial risks and hazards so they can make informed decisions. Florida’s Medical Consent Law provides the more specific legal framework governing informed consent in medical treatment.
That does not mean doctors can predict every complication or guarantee a successful outcome. Medicine involves uncertainty, and sometimes serious complications occur even when appropriate care is provided.
But patients should have an appropriate opportunity to understand the significant choices before them.
At Travieso McLeod, the firm represents individuals and families in complex medical malpractice, catastrophic injury, and wrongful death cases throughout Florida. We believe patient education and public awareness are important parts of patient safety. Understanding what informed consent really means can help patients ask better questions, participate more meaningfully in their medical care, and recognize when the treatment they received may not have been what they understood or authorized. Contact us today at (904) 204-3013 or request a free consultation online.
Sources & Additional Reading
- Florida Patient’s Bill of Rights and Responsibilities — Florida Statute §381.026
- Florida Medical Consent Law — Florida Statute §766.103
- Florida Law on Emergency Examination and Treatment — Florida Statute §401.445
- Angel Tomas v. Dmitry Sandler, DPM, et al. — Florida Third District Court of Appeal
- Associated Press — Hillary Brown Case
- Florida Senate — Hillary’s Law, SB 424 (2025)
- Florida Senate — Stem Cell Therapy, SB 1768 (2025)
- Florida Senate — SB 1768 Bill Summary and Informed Consent Requirements
- The Pitt — Warner Bros. Discovery/HBO Max
