Health Law Keyed to Furrow
Brook v. St. John’s Hickey Memorial Hospital
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
Brook (Plaintiff), a two-year-old, had a urological condition that required certain X-ray studies which involved the injection of a contrast dye. The standard location for the injection was the buttocks. However, Fischer (Defendant), the radiologist performing the procedure, had seen literature that stated injecting the substance into the buttocks and thighs of young patients could be harmful. He wanted to inject in the buttocks but, since he could not find a vein, he injected into the calves. After this, Plaintiff developed an Achilles tendon condition which required therapy. Plaintiff sued Defendant for malpractice. The trial court rejected the instruction offered by Plaintiff that injection in a site other than the site recommended by the medical community constituted improper experimentation on Plaintiff. A jury rendered a verdict for the defense. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the instruction should have been given. Review was granted by the Indiana Supreme Court.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.