Cabiroy v. Scipione Case Brief
Complete case briefs with LSD+
Every LSD.Law brief pairs a full IRAC analysis with opinion summaries at three levels of depth, written by a team of Harvard Law and MIT graduates - a quick synopsis when you are pressed for time, the complete reasoning when you need to go deep.
Adaptive Case Views
Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.
Exam-Ready IRAC Format
We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.
Complex Cases, Clarified
We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.
Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis
tl;dr: A doctor injected a patient with non-FDA-approved silicone from an unlabeled bottle. The court held that violating the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act could establish negligence per se in a state medical malpractice claim, satisfying the elements of duty and breach.
Legal Significance: Establishes that a violation of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act can serve as the basis for a negligence per se claim under state tort law, defining the standard of care for physicians using unapproved medical devices.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff, Cabiroy, sought treatment from the defendant, Dr. Scipione, for a nasal deformity. Dr. Scipione administered injections of liquid silicone. Although the plaintiff signed a consent form acknowledging the treatment was not FDA-approved, the defendant used silicone from an unsealed, unlabeled, non-sterile eight-ounce bottle. The FDA classifies liquid injectable silicone as a Class III medical device, the most heavily regulated category, and has never approved it for general use. The defendant was not an authorized investigator in any FDA-sanctioned study for the substance. Following the injections, the plaintiff developed lumps on his nose which required surgical removal. The plaintiff filed a medical malpractice action, alleging, among other things, that the defendant’s violation of federal FDA statutes constituted negligence per se. The trial court initially granted a non-suit on this claim but later ordered a new trial, finding its initial ruling was in error.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Does a physician’s violation of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by administering a non-FDA-approved medical device constitute negligence per se in a state common law medical malpractice action?
Yes. The court affirmed the order for a new trial, holding that Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Exce
IRAC Legal Analysis
About IRAC analysis
IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the structure professors expect in exam answers. Each LSD.Law brief states the issue, the governing rule with citations, the court's application of that rule, and the conclusion - the same reasoning pattern you will use on exams and in practice.
Legal Issue
Does a physician’s violation of the federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act by administering a non-FDA-approved medical device constitute negligence per se in a state common law medical malpractice action?
Conclusion
This case solidifies the principle that federal safety regulations can be used Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostru
Legal Rule
Under Pennsylvania law, the violation of a statute or governmental safety regulation, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in
Legal Analysis
The court reasoned that the doctrine of negligence per se applies when Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit ess
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- A physician’s violation of the FDCA by using an unapproved medical