Sullivan v. O’Connor – Case Brief
Sullivan v. O’Connor, 363 Mass. 579, 296 N.E.2d 183 (1973).
Facts: Sullivan (P), an entertainer, contracted with O’Connor (D), a plastic surgeon, for cosmetic surgery on her nose. O’Connor promised that only two surgeries would be necessary and that the nose job would enhance and improve Sullivan’s beauty. After three operations Sullivan’s nose had become asymmetrical and looked worse than it had prior to the operations. Further improvement was impossible.
P sued for breach of contract and negligence. The judge instructed the jury that P was entitled to only those damages resulting directly, naturally, proximately, and foreseeably from D’s breach, and other incidental expenses related to the operations. The trial judge instructed the jury to consider damages for disfigurement including the effects of this upon the mind of P, and to consider the fact that P was an entertainer and the effect this would have on her professional career. The judge also instructed the jury that pain and suffering were compensable for the third operation but not the first two, and that damages for lost earnings should not be included because no loss had been proven.
The jury found for P on the breach of contract count and for D on negligence. P was awarded damages for out-of-pocket expenses and for the pain, suffering, and mental distress arising from the third operation. D appealed, asserting that pain, suffering, and mental distress are not proper damages for a breach of contract.
Issue: 1) Are pain, suffering, and mental distress compensable damages under either expectancy or a reliance view of damages from a breach of contract? 2) Can a promise of a specified result from a doctor to a patient be enforced?
Holding and Rule: 1) Yes. Pain, suffering, and mental distresses are compensable damages for breach of contract under either expectancy or a reliance damages. 2) Yes. An agreement between a doctor and a patient which calls for a specified result can be enforced.
Courts require clear proof of a promise before allowing a breach of contract in a doctor-patient relationship to proceed. Here there was such proof.
Under a contract breach, the afflicted party may recover those damages intended to put the plaintiff in the position he would be in if the contract had been performed, or at the plaintiff’s election an amount corresponding to any benefit conferred by the plaintiff upon the defendant in the performance of the contract. P is entitled to recover reliance damages for expenditures made by her and for other detriment that was proximate and foreseeable from D’s failure to carry out his promise.
There is no general rule barring recovery for pain, suffering and mental distress in action for a breach of contract. Suffering and distress resulting from a breach going beyond that which was envisaged by the treatment as agreed are compensable on the same ground as the worsening of the patient’s condition.
Disposition: Affirmed.
Notes: Physicians’ words of encouragement will normally be interpreted as a promise to use their best efforts. In this case however the physician promised that the procedure would be a success.