KAPLAN v. MAYO CLINIC 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 patient sued a clinic for breach of contract after a surgeon performed a major surgery without a promised preliminary biopsy. The court held that only pecuniary damages, not damages for pain and suffering or loss of consortium, were recoverable for the breach.
Legal Significance: This case clarifies that under Minnesota law, damages for breach of a physician-patient contract are limited to pecuniary losses. It reinforces the strict boundary between contract and tort remedies, precluding recovery for non-economic damages absent an independent, willful tort.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
Elliot Kaplan was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer based on a review of pathology slides by a Mayo Clinic pathologist. Dr. Nagorney, a Mayo surgeon, recommended a pancreatoduodenectomy (a “Whipple” procedure). Concerned about the diagnosis’s accuracy, Kaplan alleged that Dr. Nagorney expressly promised to perform an intraoperative biopsy to confirm the cancer before proceeding with the full surgery. Dr. Nagorney performed the Whipple procedure without conducting the promised biopsy. Post-operative analysis of the removed tissue revealed that Kaplan did not have cancer. The Kaplans sued for medical malpractice and breach of contract. A jury found for the defendants on the malpractice claim. However, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed a judgment as a matter of law on the contract claim, finding a reasonable jury could conclude that Dr. Nagorney, on behalf of Mayo, formed and breached a contract to perform the preliminary biopsy. The case was remanded to the district court for a trial on the breach of contract claim, specifically to determine damages.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: Under Minnesota law, are non-pecuniary damages, such as for pain and suffering and loss of consortium, recoverable for a physician’s breach of an express contract to perform a specific medical procedure?
No. The court held that damages for pain and suffering and emotional 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 f
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
Under Minnesota law, are non-pecuniary damages, such as for pain and suffering and loss of consortium, recoverable for a physician’s breach of an express contract to perform a specific medical procedure?
Conclusion
This case establishes that under Minnesota law, a breach of contract claim 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 ul
Legal Rule
In Minnesota, damages for breach of contract are limited to pecuniary losses 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 cupida
Legal Analysis
The court predicted how the Minnesota Supreme Court would resolve the issue 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 esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pa
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- Under Minnesota law, damages for pain, suffering, and emotional distress are