Washington v. NYC Medical Practice, P.C.

Background

Tyesha Washington received a Liposuction 360/Brazilian Butt Lift procedure from NYC Medical Practice, P.C., doing business as Goals Aesthetics and Plastic Surgery, in New York City on May 22, 2018. Anthony Ray Perkins performed the procedure. Washington later experienced pain, a liposuction burn, infection, and the need for remedial surgery.

Washington contacted Goals to request a full refund. Goals agreed to refund $6,095 if Washington signed a one-page general release. The release covered claims, including malpractice claims, related to the procedure and later care. Washington signed it before an Ohio notary on June 29, 2018. The opinion states that she had received $5,750 of the promised $6,095 by the time of the ruling.

Washington then sued Goals, Perkins, and Sergey Voskin, alleging negligence in connection with the cosmetic procedure. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the release barred the lawsuit. Washington argued that there had not been enough discovery and challenged the release’s validity.

Court’s Analysis

The court first rejected Washington’s request to delay ruling because of inadequate discovery. It found that the parties had completed the limited discovery previously ordered concerning the release and that the record was sufficient to decide the motion. The court also rejected Washington’s argument that the motion was premature because the defendants had not filed an answer, finding that an answer would not clarify or assist in resolving the summary-judgment issues.

Under New York law, the court explained, a clear and unambiguous release that is knowingly and voluntarily entered generally bars claims covered by the release. The release contained a choice-of-law provision selecting New York law.

The release incorrectly stated that the procedure occurred on June 22, 2018, rather than May 22, 2018. The court treated this as a scrivener’s error—a writing mistake that failed to record the parties’ actual agreement—rather than an ambiguity. Because the parties intended the release to cover the procedure Washington received and both understood that procedure to have occurred on May 22, the court reformed the release to replace June 22 with May 22.

Washington also argued that she was mentally incapacitated when she signed the release because she was taking prescription medication after her remedial surgery. The court stated that, under New York law, she had to show both that she was wholly unable to understand the transaction and that the defendants knew or should have known of that condition. The court found that her evidence did not create a genuine dispute for trial. It relied on her initiating the refund request, sending photographs of her injuries, receiving help from a friend who helped her understand what she was signing, and signing before a notary who certified that the signature was voluntary. The court also found that Washington had not told the defendants she was under the influence of prescription drugs and that the defendants therefore did not know, and should not have known, about the claimed incapacity.

Disposition

The court held that Washington’s objections to the release were unavailing and that the release covered potential liability arising from the procedure. Judge Paul A. Crotty granted the motion for summary judgment. The court dismissed the remaining discovery motions as moot and directed the Clerk to terminate the case. The court noted that Washington had not pleaded a breach-of-contract claim for the unpaid portion of the refund and therefore did not order payment of that amount.