Henderson v. Heyer-Schulte Corp.
Court of Civil Appeals of Texas
600 S.W.2d 844 (1980)
- Written by Craig Conway, LLM
Facts
Carol Henderson (plaintiff) underwent breast enlargement surgery in which silicone implants were inserted. Rothenberg, Henderson’s surgeon (defendant), intentionally slit each implant to allow the gel to seep into retro-mammary pockets. This surgical technique was no longer recognized or an accepted method for performing the procedure. Thereafter, Henderson began experiencing pain, inflammation, and small lumps (hardened silicone pieces) beneath the skin of her chest and abdomen. After 20 additional surgical procedures, the lumps continued to appear and Henderson’s breasts became disfigured. Henderson brought suit against the surgeon and claimed that the specific technique of slitting the silicone implant after implantation was negligent. The trial court allowed an instruction stating that plastic surgeons recognize more than one method for performing the surgical technique used in Henderson’s procedure. The jury found in favor of Rothenberg and Henderson appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Peden, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 805,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 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.
