Most of us have signed a hospital consent form without reading every word. A recent Vermont Supreme Court decision, Ford v. Polomsky, shows what can happen when a patient later says, "I never agreed to that."
What Happened
In October 2022, John Ford went to the University of Vermont Medical Center with a serious heart problem. He said no to surgery at first. After talking with his surgeon, Dr. Marek Polomsky, he agreed to a heart bypass.
Before the operation, Ford signed a consent form. Three procedures were handwritten on it: the bypass, a related vein procedure, and something called a "left atrial appendage clip." That clip is a small device placed on part of the heart.
During surgery, the doctor put the clip in. Ford later sued. He said he had only agreed to the bypass, and that nobody had explained the clip to him. He also pointed out that the printed part of the form kept saying "procedure," singular, as if he had agreed to just one thing.
What the Court Decided
The court ruled against Ford. Its reasoning came down to the difference between two kinds of legal claims.
The first is battery. In medicine, battery means a doctor did something you never agreed to, such as operating on the wrong knee or performing a completely different surgery. The second is lack of informed consent. That means you agreed to the procedure, but the doctor didn't explain it well enough for you to make a real decision.
The court said Ford's case belonged in the second category. The clip was written on the form he signed, and the doctor performed exactly that procedure. The court wasn't willing to ignore the third item on the list because of the word "procedure" in the fine print. If Ford didn't understand what the clip involved, that could be a complaint about poor explanation. It was not battery.
Why It Matters
This may sound like a technicality, but the two claims work very differently. A lawsuit claiming the doctor didn't explain things properly is treated as a malpractice case. In Vermont, that means the patient has to bring in a medical expert and file paperwork showing the claim has merit. A battery claim doesn't have those requirements. The court didn't want patients to get around the stricter rules by giving their case a different label.
Not Everyone Agreed
The vote was 3–2. One dissenting justice said Ford should have been allowed to move forward, since courts are supposed to give people the benefit of the doubt early in a case. Another said the form was too vague, because "left atrial appendage clip" doesn't tell a typical patient that a device will be attached to their heart.
The Takeaway
For patients, signing a form usually counts as agreeing, so ask questions about anything you don't recognize before you sign. For hospitals, the dissents are a reminder that a clear, plain-language explanation protects the patient and the provider.