Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Henderson v. Heyer-Schulte Corp. case brief

Henderson v. Heyer-Schulte Corp. case brief summary
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.
CONCLUSION
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

Montana Cannabis Industry Association v. Montana Case Brief: Key Takeaways for Law Students and Legal Researchers

Case Brief: Montana Cannabis Industry Association v. Montana, 368 P.3d 1131 (Mont. 2016) Court Supreme Court of Montana Citation 368 P.3d 11...