Sullivan v. O'CONNOR Case Brief
Audio lesson available for this case
LSD+ subscribers can listen to a recorded discussion of this brief - the full facts, holding, and reasoning in audio form.
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 surgeon for breach of contract after a nose job worsened her appearance. The court affirmed a damage award that went beyond out-of-pocket costs, suggesting a “reliance” measure is appropriate for physician-patient contracts to restore the patient to their pre-contract position.
Legal Significance: Establishes that for breach of a physician’s promise to achieve a specific result, damages may be measured by the patient’s reliance interest. This includes out-of-pocket costs, worsening of condition, and pain and suffering from procedures necessitated by the breach, offering a middle ground between expectancy and restitution.
Sullivan v. O'CONNOR Law School Study Guide
Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.
Case Facts & Court Holding
Key Facts & Case Background
The plaintiff, a professional entertainer, entered into a contract with the defendant surgeon, who promised to enhance her beauty by performing plastic surgery on her nose. The defendant performed two operations as planned, but a third, unplanned operation was also required. The result was that the plaintiff’s appearance was worsened, and her nose became disfigured. The plaintiff sued for both negligence and breach of contract. A jury found the defendant not liable for negligence but liable for breach of contract, awarding $13,500 in damages. The trial judge’s instructions allowed the jury to award damages for the plaintiff’s out-of-pocket expenses, for the worsening of her appearance and associated mental distress, and for the pain and suffering related to the third operation. The defendant appealed, arguing that damages should be limited to the plaintiff’s out-of-pocket expenses (restitution). The plaintiff waived her cross-appeal for full expectancy damages in order to preserve the jury’s verdict.
Court Holding & Legal Precedent
Issue: In an action for breach of a physician’s special agreement to produce a specific medical result, may the plaintiff recover damages based on their reliance interest, including pain, suffering, and worsening of condition, or are damages limited to restitution of out-of-pocket expenses?
Yes. The court affirmed the damage award, holding that a patient is 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
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
In an action for breach of a physician’s special agreement to produce a specific medical result, may the plaintiff recover damages based on their reliance interest, including pain, suffering, and worsening of condition, or are damages limited to restitution of out-of-pocket expenses?
Conclusion
This case is a foundational decision in contract remedies, establishing the reliance 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 c
Legal Rule
For a breach of a special agreement between a physician and patient, 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
Legal Analysis
The court analyzed the appropriate measure of damages for a breach of 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 ma
Flash-to-Full Case Opinions
Flash Summary
- In a breach of contract action against a physician for a