Henderson v. Heyer-Schulte Corp. case brief summary
600 S.W.2d 844 (1980)
CASE FACTS
Appellant patient received a breast augmentation from appellee doctor with implants made by appellee corporation. After inserting the implants, appellee doctor intentionally ruptured the envelopes. Appellant suffered hematomas and siliconomas caused by migrating gel. Appellant brought an action in negligence against appellees and an additional warranty claim against appellee corporation and a take-nothing judgment was rendered.
DISCUSSION
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of appellees, doctor and corporation, in appellant patient's negligence and breach of warranty action because the trial court's instruction regarding appellee doctor's standard of care, while erroneous as not in accord with the state high court's standard, was a harmless error because there was insufficient evidence to support the submission of the issue of proximate cause to the jury.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
600 S.W.2d 844 (1980)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Appellant patient sought
review of the judgment of the District Court of Harris County
(Texas), which rendered a take-nothing verdict in appellant's
negligence action against appellees, doctor and corporation, and her
breach of warranty claim against appellee corporation stemming from a
failed breast augmentation.CASE FACTS
Appellant patient received a breast augmentation from appellee doctor with implants made by appellee corporation. After inserting the implants, appellee doctor intentionally ruptured the envelopes. Appellant suffered hematomas and siliconomas caused by migrating gel. Appellant brought an action in negligence against appellees and an additional warranty claim against appellee corporation and a take-nothing judgment was rendered.
DISCUSSION
- On appeal, the court affirmed.
- The court held that the instruction given by the trial judge concerning the standard of care should not have been given because it was not in accord with the test set forth by the state supreme court.
- The error was harmless, however, because the evidence was legally insufficient to support the submission of the issue of proximate cause to the jury.
- The exclusion of appellant's proffered evidence, which purportedly established the state of medical knowledge at the time of her operation by appellee doctor as to the practice of rupturing the envelopes in breast augmentations, was proper because appellant was unable to identify or authenticate it.
The court affirmed the judgment in favor of appellees, doctor and corporation, in appellant patient's negligence and breach of warranty action because the trial court's instruction regarding appellee doctor's standard of care, while erroneous as not in accord with the state high court's standard, was a harmless error because there was insufficient evidence to support the submission of the issue of proximate cause to the jury.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment