Perry v. Shaw
California Court of Appeals
88 Cal. App. 4th 658, 106 Cal. Rptr. 2d 7 (2001)
- Written by Elliot Stern, JD
Facts
Sandra Perry (plaintiff) went to Dr. William Shaw (defendant) to discuss surgery to remove excess skin from Perry’s arms, back, thighs, and stomach, following Perry’s substantial weight loss. During a number of office visits, Perry and Shaw discussed the option of Shaw performing breast enlargement and breast-lifting procedures as part of the planned surgery. Perry told Shaw that she had decided she definitely did not want to have any breast surgery at that time. When Perry went to the hospital for the surgery, she was presented with a form that asked for consent for the breast-lifting procedure. Perry twice refused to sign. However, after Perry was medicated and taken to the operating room and assured by Shaw that he would not perform breast surgery, Perry signed the consent form. When Perry awoke from the surgery, she discovered that in addition to the skin removal procure, Shaw had enlarged her breasts by moving tissue flaps from the sides of her chest into her breasts. Perry was dismayed, and when she asked Shaw about the breast enlargement, Shaw told her that though she might be upset now, she would be happy in a year after further surgeries for minor revisions. Perry sued Shaw, and the jury sided with Perry, finding that Shaw had committed medical negligence and battery, and awarded Perry $59,000 in medical expenses and $1,030,000 for noneconomic damages. Shaw motioned to reduce the noneconomic damages award to $250,000 on the basis of the Medical Injury Compensation Reform Act. The judge denied the motion, and Shaw appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Vogel, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 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.