Kaplan v. Mayo Clinic, No. 15-2855 (8th Cir. 2017)
Annotate this CaseAfter a surgical procedure was performed on Elliot Kaplan as a result of a misdiagnosis, the Kaplans filed suit against Mayo for medical malpractice, breach of contract, lack of informed consent, and loss of consortium. The district court dismissed all claims against Dr. Nagorney, the surgeon who performed the medical procedure; the district court granted Mayo's motion for judgment as a matter of law on the breach-of-contract claim; and the jury returned a verdict for defendants on the malpractice claim. On appeal, the court upheld the jury verdict but vacated the judgment in favor of Mayo on the breach-of-contract claim, and held that the district court erred by requiring expert testimony to establish a contract breach and remanded the claim to trial. The district court subsequently entered judgment for Mayo. The court concluded that substantial evidence supports the district court's finding that Dr. Nagorney did not promise to do a biopsy of Elliot’s pancreas during the surgery and that no meeting of the minds occurred to form a contract. The court rejected plaintiffs' claim that this court, in Kaplan I, forbid defendants' use of expert testimony to establish a defense to the claim of a special contract in the performance of the operation. Because the district court committed no error, the court upheld the district court's factual findings. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment.
Court Description: Smith, Author, with Loken and Colloton, Circuit Judges] Civil case - Breach of Contract. For the court's prior opinion in the matter, see Kaplan v. Mayo Clinic, 653 F.3d 720 (8th Cir. 2011). The district court did not err in ruling for defendants on plaintiff's breach-of-contract claim based on its conclusion that the operating surgeon did not promise to do a biopsy of plaintiff's pancreas during the surgery; this court's holding in the prior appeal did not preclude the district court, as fact finder, from determining no contract had even been formed; nor did the court's decision preclude defendants from submitting expert testimony to establish a defense to the claim of a special contract in the performance of the operation.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.