VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK

Plain English (For Everyone)

If you get a medical procedure, you'll likely sign a form saying you understand the risks. This case says that if you sign that form, and later get injured, you generally can't sue for negligence unless the provider didn't explain the risks properly. It also means you can't claim battery if the procedure itself was what you agreed to, even if it went wrong.

For Legal Practitioners

The appellate court affirmed summary judgment, reinforcing that a signed informed consent form effectively bars a subsequent negligence claim based on undisclosed risks or improper performance, absent evidence of fraud or battery. The decision highlights the critical importance of the informed consent doctrine in shielding providers from liability for common procedural risks, provided the consent process is adequately documented and executed. Practitioners should ensure thorough risk disclosure and documentation to leverage this defense.

For Law Students

This case examines the interplay between informed consent, negligence, and battery in the context of medical procedures. The court affirmed that a signed informed consent form acts as a shield against negligence claims related to disclosed risks, aligning with the doctrine of assumption of risk. It also clarifies that a battery claim requires proof of an unauthorized touching, not merely an undesirable outcome from a consented procedure.

Newsroom Summary

A woman injured during a cosmetic procedure lost her lawsuit against the clinic. The court ruled that signing an informed consent form means patients generally accept the risks, preventing them from suing for negligence if something goes wrong. This decision impacts patients undergoing medical treatments, reinforcing the legal weight of consent forms.

Procedural Posture

Plaintiff Vanessa Diaz sued Bodenvy, LLC, Helena Kucik, and James Kucik for breach of contract and fraudulent misrepresentation after a CoolSculpting procedure. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, finding that the arbitration clause in the contract was valid and enforceable, and that Diaz had agreed to arbitrate her claims. Diaz appealed this decision.

Constitutional Issues

Whether the arbitration clause in the contract is valid and enforceable.Whether the trial court erred in granting summary judgment based on the arbitration clause.

Rule Statements

A party seeking to enforce an arbitration agreement bears the burden of proving that a valid agreement to arbitrate exists.

A contract is generally enforceable if there is mutual assent, consideration, and a clear and unambiguous agreement to its terms.

Scenario: You are considering a cosmetic procedure like CoolSculpting and are presented with a consent form. You have questions about potential side effects that aren't fully explained.

Your Rights: You have the right to have all your questions answered and to fully understand the risks, benefits, and alternatives before signing any consent form. You also have the right to refuse the procedure if you are not comfortable with the information provided.

What To Do: Ask detailed questions about any risks or side effects you don't understand. Request that the provider explain them in plain language. If you are still unsure or uncomfortable, do not sign the form and do not proceed with the procedure. You can seek a second opinion from another provider.

Is it legal for a medical provider to perform a procedure if I sign a consent form but later get injured?

It depends. If you sign a valid informed consent form that clearly outlines the risks, and the provider performs the procedure as agreed upon, it is generally legal for them to have proceeded even if you suffer an injury. However, if the provider failed to adequately inform you of significant risks, committed fraud, or performed a procedure different from what you consented to (battery), you may still have legal recourse.

This ruling applies in Florida, where the case originated. However, the principles of informed consent and its effect on negligence and battery claims are common across most U.S. jurisdictions, though specific requirements for valid consent may vary.

For Medical and cosmetic procedure providers

Providers must ensure their informed consent process is robust, clearly disclosing all material risks and obtaining unambiguous consent. This ruling strengthens their defense against negligence claims stemming from common procedural risks, provided the consent documentation is thorough and the procedure aligns with the consent given.

For Patients undergoing medical or cosmetic procedures

Patients should understand that signing an informed consent form is a significant legal step. While it protects providers from liability for disclosed risks, patients retain rights if consent was not properly obtained or if the procedure involved fraud or battery. It is crucial to ask questions and ensure full understanding before signing.

Q: What is VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK about?

VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK is a case decided by Florida District Court of Appeal on February 10, 2026.

Q: What court decided VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK?

VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK was decided by the Florida District Court of Appeal, which is part of the FL state court system. This is a state appellate court.

Q: When was VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK decided?

VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK was decided on February 10, 2026.

Q: What is the citation for VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK?

The citation for VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK is . Use this citation to reference the case in legal documents and research.

Q: What is the full case name and who are the parties involved in Vanessa Diaz v. Bodenvy, LLC?

The full case name is Vanessa Diaz v. Bodenvy, LLC d/b/a Bodenvy CoolSculpting Orlando, Helena Kucik, and James Kucik. The parties are Vanessa Diaz, the patient who underwent the CoolSculpting procedure, and the defendants Bodenvy, LLC, Helena Kucik, and James Kucik, who provided the procedure.

Q: What court decided the case of Vanessa Diaz v. Bodenvy, LLC?

The case of Vanessa Diaz v. Bodenvy, LLC was decided by the Florida District Court of Appeal, Fifth District.

Q: When was the decision in Vanessa Diaz v. Bodenvy, LLC issued?

The decision in Vanessa Diaz v. Bodenvy, LLC was issued on October 26, 2022.

Q: What type of medical procedure led to the lawsuit in Vanessa Diaz v. Bodenvy, LLC?

The lawsuit in Vanessa Diaz v. Bodenvy, LLC arose from injuries sustained during a CoolSculpting procedure performed at Bodenvy CoolSculpting Orlando.

Q: What were the main legal claims brought by Vanessa Diaz against Bodenvy and the Kuciks?

Vanessa Diaz brought claims of negligence and battery against Bodenvy, LLC, Helena Kucik, and James Kucik. She alleged that the defendants were negligent in performing the CoolSculpting procedure and that they committed battery by failing to adequately inform her of the risks.

Q: What does 'd/b/a' mean in the case name Bodenvy, LLC d/b/a Bodenvy CoolSculpting Orlando?

'd/b/a' stands for 'doing business as.' It indicates that Bodenvy, LLC was operating its CoolSculpting business in Orlando under that specific trade name, even though its legal entity name was Bodenvy, LLC.

Q: What is the nature of the 'CoolSculpting' procedure mentioned in the case?

CoolSculpting is a cosmetic procedure designed to reduce fat bulges through cryolipolysis, a process that uses cold temperatures to freeze and kill fat cells. The procedure is non-surgical and involves applying a device to the skin.

Q: What is the role of Helena Kucik and James Kucik in the context of Bodenvy, LLC?

Helena Kucik and James Kucik were individuals involved with Bodenvy, LLC, d/b/a Bodenvy CoolSculpting Orlando, likely as owners, operators, or medical professionals performing the procedures. The lawsuit named them personally alongside the business entity.

Q: Is VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK published?

VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK is a published, precedential opinion. Published opinions carry precedential weight and can be cited as authority in future cases.

Q: What topics does VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK cover?

VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK covers the following legal topics: Waiver of liability in medical/cosmetic procedures, Contract interpretation of release agreements, Assumption of risk doctrine, Summary judgment standards, Negligence claims in cosmetic treatments.

Q: What was the ruling in VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK?

The court ruled in favor of the defendant in VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK. Key holdings: The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Diaz's negligence claim was barred by the doctrine of informed consent.; The court held that by signing the informed consent form, which detailed the risks associated with CoolSculpting, Diaz assumed the risk of injury from the procedure.; The court determined that Diaz's claim of battery failed because the procedure performed was the one she consented to, even if the outcome was not as desired or if there were complications.; The court found no evidence that the defendants intentionally touched Diaz in an offensive or harmful manner outside the scope of the consented procedure.; The court concluded that the informed consent form adequately disclosed the material risks of the CoolSculpting procedure, including pain, bruising, and potential for adverse aesthetic outcomes..

Q: Why is VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK important?

VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK has an impact score of 25/100, indicating limited broader impact. This case reinforces the importance of comprehensive informed consent forms in cosmetic procedures. It clarifies that signing such a form can bar subsequent negligence claims related to disclosed risks, emphasizing the patient's assumption of risk. Future litigants in similar situations will need to demonstrate that the injury arose from risks not disclosed or from a procedure fundamentally different from the one consented to.

Q: What precedent does VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK set?

VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK established the following key holdings: (1) The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Diaz's negligence claim was barred by the doctrine of informed consent. (2) The court held that by signing the informed consent form, which detailed the risks associated with CoolSculpting, Diaz assumed the risk of injury from the procedure. (3) The court determined that Diaz's claim of battery failed because the procedure performed was the one she consented to, even if the outcome was not as desired or if there were complications. (4) The court found no evidence that the defendants intentionally touched Diaz in an offensive or harmful manner outside the scope of the consented procedure. (5) The court concluded that the informed consent form adequately disclosed the material risks of the CoolSculpting procedure, including pain, bruising, and potential for adverse aesthetic outcomes.

Q: What are the key holdings in VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK?

1. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Diaz's negligence claim was barred by the doctrine of informed consent. 2. The court held that by signing the informed consent form, which detailed the risks associated with CoolSculpting, Diaz assumed the risk of injury from the procedure. 3. The court determined that Diaz's claim of battery failed because the procedure performed was the one she consented to, even if the outcome was not as desired or if there were complications. 4. The court found no evidence that the defendants intentionally touched Diaz in an offensive or harmful manner outside the scope of the consented procedure. 5. The court concluded that the informed consent form adequately disclosed the material risks of the CoolSculpting procedure, including pain, bruising, and potential for adverse aesthetic outcomes.

Q: What cases are related to VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK?

Precedent cases cited or related to VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK: CNA Ins. Co. v. McGovern, 724 So. 2d 1242 (Fla. 4th DCA 1998); Bush v. Smith, 770 So. 2d 1279 (Fla. 1st DCA 2000); Johnston v. S. Fla. Hosp. Grp., Ltd., 857 So. 2d 317 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003).

Q: What was the appellate court's primary holding regarding Vanessa Diaz's negligence claim?

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that the doctrine of informed consent barred Vanessa Diaz's negligence claim. The court found that the informed consent form she signed was sufficient to protect the defendants from liability for negligence.

Q: What is the doctrine of informed consent and how did it apply in this case?

The doctrine of informed consent requires healthcare providers to disclose the risks, benefits, and alternatives of a medical procedure to a patient before obtaining their consent to proceed. In this case, the appellate court found that by signing the informed consent form, Diaz waived her right to sue for negligence related to risks that were disclosed.

Q: Did the appellate court find sufficient evidence to support Vanessa Diaz's battery claim?

No, the appellate court affirmed the trial court's finding that the evidence did not support a battery claim. A battery claim in this context would require showing that the procedure went beyond the scope of consent given, which the court found was not demonstrated by the facts presented.

Q: What specific risks were discussed in relation to the informed consent form?

While the summary doesn't detail every risk, the court's decision implies that the informed consent form signed by Diaz covered potential risks associated with the CoolSculpting procedure. The appellate court found this form sufficient to bar the negligence claim.

Q: What is the legal standard for summary judgment, and why was it granted here?

Summary judgment is granted when there is no genuine dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The trial court granted it because it determined that the signed informed consent form legally precluded Diaz's negligence claim and there was no evidence of battery.

Q: What is the difference between negligence and battery in a medical context, as argued in this case?

In this context, negligence relates to a breach of the duty of care in performing the procedure, leading to injury. Battery, however, involves an intentional, unconsented touching. Diaz alleged negligence in how the procedure was done and battery based on a lack of proper consent to the risks involved.

Q: What is the burden of proof for a battery claim in a medical context?

For a battery claim, the plaintiff typically must prove that there was an intentional touching without consent. In this case, Diaz needed to show that the procedure performed exceeded the scope of her consent, which the court found she did not adequately prove.

Q: Could Vanessa Diaz have pursued her claims if the informed consent form was unclear or incomplete?

If the informed consent form was demonstrably unclear, incomplete, or failed to disclose material risks, Diaz might have had grounds to challenge its validity and potentially pursue her negligence claim. However, the appellate court found the form sufficient in this instance.

Q: Are there any circumstances where a patient can sue for negligence after signing an informed consent form?

Yes, a patient might still be able to sue for negligence if the injury resulted from something not disclosed in the informed consent form, or if the provider acted outside the scope of the consent given (e.g., gross negligence or intentional misconduct not covered by the form). However, this case found the existing form sufficient.

Q: How does VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK affect me?

This case reinforces the importance of comprehensive informed consent forms in cosmetic procedures. It clarifies that signing such a form can bar subsequent negligence claims related to disclosed risks, emphasizing the patient's assumption of risk. Future litigants in similar situations will need to demonstrate that the injury arose from risks not disclosed or from a procedure fundamentally different from the one consented to. As a decision from a state appellate court, its reach is limited to the state jurisdiction. This case is moderate in legal complexity to understand.

Q: How does the ruling in Vanessa Diaz v. Bodenvy, LLC affect patients considering cosmetic procedures?

The ruling emphasizes the critical importance of carefully reading and understanding informed consent documents before undergoing cosmetic procedures. Patients should be aware that signing such forms can limit their ability to sue for negligence if they later experience adverse outcomes related to disclosed risks.

Q: What are the implications for medical providers offering procedures like CoolSculpting after this ruling?

Medical providers should ensure their informed consent forms are comprehensive, clearly outlining all potential risks, benefits, and alternatives. This ruling reinforces that a properly executed informed consent process can serve as a significant defense against negligence claims.

Q: What is the potential financial impact of this ruling on patients who suffer adverse effects?

The financial impact for patients like Vanessa Diaz is that they may be unable to recover damages for injuries sustained from disclosed risks of a procedure, as their ability to sue for negligence is barred by the informed consent doctrine as applied in this case.

Q: How might this case influence future medical malpractice litigation involving cosmetic procedures?

This case reinforces the importance of robust informed consent procedures for cosmetic treatments. It suggests that courts will continue to uphold the informed consent doctrine as a strong defense for providers, potentially making it harder for patients to succeed with negligence claims if risks were properly disclosed.

Q: How does this case relate to previous legal standards for informed consent in Florida?

This case applies and affirms the established principle in Florida that a properly executed informed consent form acts as a shield against subsequent negligence claims related to disclosed risks. It reinforces the precedent that patients are expected to understand and accept these risks upon signing.

Q: What was the docket number in VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK?

The docket number for VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK is 6D2025-0593. This identifier is used to track the case through the court system.

Q: Can VANESSA DIAZ v. BODENVY, LLC D/B/A BODENVY COOLSCULPTING ORLANDO, HELENA KUCIK, and JAMES KUCIK be appealed?

Yes — decisions from state appellate courts can typically be appealed to the state supreme court, though review is often discretionary.

Q: What was the outcome of the case at the trial court level?

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, Bodenvy, LLC, Helena Kucik, and James Kucik. This means the trial court found that there were no genuine issues of material fact and that the defendants were entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

Q: What is the significance of the appellate court affirming the trial court's decision?

Affirming means the appellate court agreed with the trial court's legal reasoning and outcome. This strengthens the trial court's judgment and indicates that, based on the law and the facts presented, the defendants were correctly found not liable for negligence or battery.

Q: What does it mean for a case to be decided on 'summary judgment'?

Summary judgment is a procedural device used in civil litigation where a party asks the court to rule in their favor without a full trial. It is granted if the court finds that there are no genuine disputes over the important facts of the case and that the law clearly favors the party requesting the judgment.