Health Law Keyed to Furrow
Kaplan v. Mayo Clinic
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:
Following complaints of severe abdominal pain, Elliott Kaplan (Plaintiff) was brought to the hospital where testing was ordered by his family physician. The hospital pathologist reported that a CT scan and needle biopsy were consistent with cancer. Plaintiff was referred to Mayo Clinic Rochester, Inc., and specifically, to Drs. Nagorney and Burgart (referred to collectively as "Mayo" (Defendant). Dr. Nagorney (Defendant), a surgeon, agreed to treat Plaintiff and requested from him the hospital records and biopsy slides that the pathologists had examined. Dr. Burgart (Defendant), a pathologist, reviewed the needle biopsy slides and provided a written diagnosis that indicated cancer. Dr. Nagorney (Defendant) reviewed Dr. Burgart's (Defendant) report and informed Plaintiff he had pancreatic cancer that was deadly and aggressive, and he recommended that a "Whipple procedure" be performed. This procedure involves removing part of the pancreas and stomach, as well as the duodenum. Following the surgery, Dr. Burgart (Defendant) and the other Mayo (Defendant) pathologists examined the removed pancreatic tissue, and found that Plaintiff had not had cancer after all. Plaintiff and his wife filed suit against Mayo (Defendant) and Drs. Nagorney (Defendant) and Burgart (Defendant), based on the incorrect diagnosis of pancreatic cancer and the surgery that followed. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Dr. Nagorney (Defendant), and the case went on to trial against the other defendants on claims of breach of contract and negligent failure to diagnose. At the conclusion of Plaintiffs' case-in-chief, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law against them on the breach-of-contract claim. The jury returned a verdict for Mayo (Defendant) and Dr. Burgart (Defendant) on the Kaplan's claim for negligent failure to diagnose, and the district court entered judgment on that verdict. The Plaintiffs then appealed the judgments in favor of Mayo (Defendant) and Dr. Burgart (D) on their negligent failure-to-diagnose and contract claims.
- 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.