In this case in which the plaintiff, a 31-year-old woman with two small children, sought an elective abortion at 21 weeks of pregnancy, the co-defendant ob/gyn performing the procedure at our client hospital, assisted by a hospital resident, realized that some tissue, almost certainly uterine, had been torn away by the bierer forceps. A hospital obstetrical and general surgical team was then called into the operating room to assist. When the team began exploring, it became evident that the uterus had sustained a tear, an ovary had been avulsed, and the rectal serosa had sustained an abrasion. It was determined that, to protect the life of the patient, a total abdominal hysterectomy, unilateral oophorectomy and surgical repair of the rectal serosa, were all indicated on an emergency basis. They were successfully performed. The plaintiff subsequently brought suit, claiming that the defendants had not properly obtained her informed consent to perform an abortion by the dilatation and evacuation method, that the defendants had recommended and performed the wrong method of abortion, that the procedure was precipitously commenced prior to achieving sufficient cervical dilatation, that the hospital had negligently credentialed and supervised an incompetent attending ob/gyn, and that the abortion was negligently performed resulting in unacceptable injuries including a hysterectomy, thus depriving her of the opportunity to become pregnant in the future. She also alleged the increased likelihood of suffering early-onset menopause due to the loss of an ovary. At the close of discovery, we moved for summary judgment, arguing: that the plaintiff had signed two separate consent forms for the abortion procedure on different dates, including the morning of the procedure, and that the conversations held with the plaintiff about the risks and alternatives were amply recorded, pre-operatively, by a hospital midwife and by the resident who assisted at the procedure; that the attending ob/gyn who performed the procedure was properly credentialed, having completed a fellowship in family planning and performed at least 1000 prior abortions of the same type; that the dilatation and evacuation procedure was the correct method of abortion, completely consistent with the prevailing standard of care in the U.S. at 21 weeks’ gestation; that the cervix was sufficiently dilated upon the commencement of the procedure, as well documented in the contemporaneous, electronic records; that there was no evidence of surgical malpractice, and; that the unfortunate complication that occurred and injuries sustained were the known, if fairly rare, risks of the procedure, and were among those about which the plaintiff was advised in the obtaining of her consent to undergo the procedure. The court granted the motion, the action was dismissed on its merits, and a Judgment was recorded in favor of the defendants.