Brown v. Dibbell

Marlene Brown (plaintiff) consulted with Dr. David Dibbell (defendant) about a lump in her breast. Brown told Dibbell that her sister and mother had breast cancer, and Dibble responded that this made her high risk but that nothing indicated that she had breast cancer. Dibbell later claimed that he had discussed the option of a mastectomy because of Brown’s fear of breast cancer, her family history, and Brown’s repeated requests for immediate treatment options, despite Dibbell’s insistence that treatment was premature. Dibbell told Brown that if she felt she had to do something, a mastectomy was the best way to reduce risk. After Dibbell performed the mastectomy, Brown had scarred breasts, asymmetrical nipples, and loss of sensation in her breasts. Brown sued Dibbell, alleging that Dibbell had never discussed a biopsy option or other alternative treatments and noting that Dibbell had said that she was high risk for breast cancer and that the best way to reduce the risk was a mastectomy. The jury awarded damages to Brown but also found Brown contributorily negligent. On appeal, Brown argued that the court had erred by instructing the jury that Brown could be held contributorily negligent. Dibbell argued that the jury should have been instructed that Brown could be found contributorily negligent if she had given an inaccurate medical history; because she had failed to ask for further information about what post-mastectomy patients looked like; or for choosing a mastectomy, which could lead to disfigurement, over periodic mammograms. The appeals court sided with Dibbell, and Brown appealed.