Sullivan v. O'Connor

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts · 1973 · Contracts

Contractsreliance damagesexpectation damagesmedical promisephysician-patient contractspecial medical promisereliance interestexpectancy interest

Facts

The plaintiff, a professional entertainer, alleged that the defendant surgeon promised to perform plastic surgery on her nose so as to enhance her beauty and improve her appearance. The jury could find that instead of two operations producing that result, the plaintiff underwent three operations and her nose was permanently worsened in appearance. The plaintiff paid $622.65 in the defendant's fee and hospital expenses, and the third operation caused additional pain and suffering. There was no proof that the changed appearance caused any loss of employment.

Issue

In a contract action against a physician who promised a specific cosmetic result, may the plaintiff recover more than her out-of-pocket expenses, including damages for worsened appearance, mental distress from the disfigurement, and pain and suffering from an additional operation caused by the breach? More broadly, what measure of damages applies to breach of such a medical promise?

Rule

Massachusetts permits enforcement of clear physician-patient contracts promising specific results. For breach of such a promise, the plaintiff is not limited to restitution of payments made; a reliance measure may be applied that allows recovery for expenditures and other detriment flowing directly, naturally, proximately, and foreseeably from the breach, including worsening of condition and additional pain, suffering, and mental distress beyond that contemplated by the treatment as agreed.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Portland, Maine, Dr. Lena Mercer told Talia Brooks before a laser procedure, "I expect this should soften the scar nicely." After the procedure, the scar looked worse, and Talia sued for breach of contract, alleging Dr. Mercer had guaranteed removal of the scar. No other evidence showed a definite commitment to a particular result.

Which is the strongest argument for Dr. Mercer on the contract claim?

Explanation. The majority allows contract actions against physicians who clearly promise a specific result, but stresses that such claims are suspect and require clear proof. Mere optimistic or therapeutic statements of opinion do not suffice. The opinion rejects a blanket public-policy bar and also makes clear that absence of negligence does not defeat an otherwise valid contract claim.