Cabiroy v. Scipione

767 A.2d 1078 (2001)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Cabiroy v. Scipione

Pennsylvania Superior Court
767 A.2d 1078 (2001)

  • Written by Tanya Munson, JD

Facts

Frank Cabiroy (plaintiff) was treated by Dr. Richard Scipione (defendant) with liquid-silicone injections to cosmetically improve a nasal deformity. The bottle of liquid silicone Dr. Scipione used was not sealed, sterile, or labeled. The injections caused lumps to form on Cabiroy’s nose, which later needed to be removed with a scalpel. Cabiroy sued Dr. Scipione for medical malpractice. The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA) gave the federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) comprehensive jurisdiction over all devices intended for human use. Devices were classified as Class I, II, or III based on their potential danger to the public. Class III devices were the most heavily regulated and must have undergone an extensive application process before they obtained FDA approval. Liquid injectible silicone was a Class III device. The FDCA also stated that the receipt in interstate commerce of any drug, device, or cosmetic that is auldutered or misbranded is prohibited. It was established at trial that the FDA had not approved the use of liquid silicone for injections. Cabiroy sought to establish that Dr. Scipione was negligent per se for violating the FDA’s provisions and the FDCA statute that prohibited the receipt in interstate commerce of any drug or device that is adulterated or mislabeled. Dr. Scipione moved for nonsuit on the issue of negligence per se. The court granted the motion, and the jury found in favor of Dr. Scipione. Cabiroy filed post-trial motions claiming that the court erred in granting the nonsuit on the issue of negligence per se. The trial court accepted this argument and ordered a new trial. Dr. Scipione appealed, challenging the grounds on which a new trial was granted.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Del Sole, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 741,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 741,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership