- Supreme judicial court of mass.
- Breach of contract on plaintiff’s nose. Plaintiff was awarded, by a jury trial the sum of $13,500, promised to enhance the beauty and improve her appearance.
- Instead, subjected her to further damages and expenses and did not achieve the contractual result as promised.
- Exception = exclusion.
- Supreme Court ruled the defendant’s exceptions should be over-ruled.
- Questions about the correctness of the judge’s instructions on the issue of damages to the jury.
- Disfigurement of the plaintiff’s nose.
- Change of appearance for worse, including the effects of disfigurement on the plaintiff’s mind, and the plaintiff’s profession.
- This is a case about reliance interest being that the plaintiff should be put back as to if the contract was enacted correctly.
- Restitution and Expectancy don’t hit home. Too meager, and too much.
- Types of remedies that are permissible by court, this is about damages
- Agreements between patients and physicians by which the physician undertakes to affect a cure or bring about a given result should be declared unenforceable on the grounds of public policy.
- Courts, are at the heart, skeptical about contracts between patients and doctors.
- Difficult to promise a result.
- Out of pocket expenses.
- Recover damages flowing directly, naturally, proximately and foreseeably from the defendant’s breach of contract.
- Did the judge err in allowing the jury to take anything into account but the plaintiff’s out-of-pocket expenses?
- Couldn’t recover damages for third surgery?
- Can’t not allow contracts in patient-doctor relationships, but can’t completely allow them to hold water either….You would either scare doctor’s away, or scare patients from “preventative practices.”
- “The law has taken a middle ground,
- Allowing actions based on alleged contracts, but insisting on CLEAR proof.
- Should have used the expectancy formula – expectancy recovery.
- Difference between the value of a good or perfect nose, as promised, and the value of the nose AFTER the bad operation.
- Were damages foreseeable by the doctor?
- Plaintiff’s exceptions waived, defendants exceptions overruled.
- Use expectancy formula in a case like this. Thus reliance interest of the patient on the doctor. Doctor “breached the contract” based upon reliance.
- The law has taken the middle road of allowing actions based on alleged contract, but insisting on clear proof.
- If breach of contract is allowed, damages must be measured based upon, reliance interests of the patient to doctor relationship.
- Defendant overruled.
- Plaintiff’s exceptions waived.