Case Citation
Legal Case Name

Sullivan v. O'CONNOR Case Brief

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court1973Docket #341375
296 N.E.2d 183 363 Mass. 579 99 A.L.R. 3d 294 1973 Mass. LEXIS 426

Audio Insights: Learn Cases on The Go

Transform downtime into productive study time with our premium audio insights. Perfect for commutes, workouts, or visual breaks from reading.

Reinforces complex concepts Improves retention Multi-modal learning

Why Top Law Students (And Those Aspiring to Be) Use LSD+ Briefs

Let's be real, law school is a marathon. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full case system is designed by Harvard Law School and MIT grads to match your pace: Quick summaries when you're slammed, detailed analysis when you need to go deep. Only LSD+ offers this kind of flexibility to genuinely fit your study flow.

Adaptive Case Views

Toggle between Flash, Standard, and Expanded. Get what you need, when you need it.

Exam-Ready IRAC Format

We deliver the precise structure professors look for in exam answers.

Complex Cases, Clarified

We break down dense legal reasoning into something digestible, helping you grasp core concepts.

Case Brief Summary & Legal Analysis

General Brief
4 min read

tl;dr: A patient sued a surgeon for breach of contract after a nose job worsened her appearance. The court affirmed a damage award that went beyond out-of-pocket costs, suggesting a “reliance” measure is appropriate for physician-patient contracts to restore the patient to their pre-contract position.

Legal Significance: Establishes that for breach of a physician’s promise to achieve a specific result, damages may be measured by the patient’s reliance interest. This includes out-of-pocket costs, worsening of condition, and pain and suffering from procedures necessitated by the breach, offering a middle ground between expectancy and restitution.

Sullivan v. O'CONNOR Law School Study Guide

Use this case brief structure for your own legal analysis. Focus on the IRAC methodology to excel in law school exams and cold calls.

Case Facts & Court Holding

Key Facts & Case Background

The plaintiff, a professional entertainer, entered into a contract with the defendant surgeon, who promised to enhance her beauty by performing plastic surgery on her nose. The defendant performed two operations as planned, but a third, unplanned operation was also required. The result was that the plaintiff’s appearance was worsened, and her nose became disfigured. The plaintiff sued for both negligence and breach of contract. A jury found the defendant not liable for negligence but liable for breach of contract, awarding $13,500 in damages. The trial judge’s instructions allowed the jury to award damages for the plaintiff’s out-of-pocket expenses, for the worsening of her appearance and associated mental distress, and for the pain and suffering related to the third operation. The defendant appealed, arguing that damages should be limited to the plaintiff’s out-of-pocket expenses (restitution). The plaintiff waived her cross-appeal for full expectancy damages in order to preserve the jury’s verdict.

Court Holding & Legal Precedent

Issue: In an action for breach of a physician’s special agreement to produce a specific medical result, may the plaintiff recover damages based on their reliance interest, including pain, suffering, and worsening of condition, or are damages limited to restitution of out-of-pocket expenses?

Yes. The court affirmed the damage award, holding that a patient is Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

IRAC Legal Analysis

Premium Feature Unlock

Complete IRAC Analysis for Higher Grades

IRAC (Issue, Rule, Analysis, Conclusion) is the exact format professors want to see in your exam answers. Our exclusive Flash-to-Full briefs combine holding, analysis, and rule statements formatted to match what A+ students produce in exams. These structured briefs help reinforce the essential legal reasoning patterns expected in law school.

Legal Issue

In an action for breach of a physician’s special agreement to produce a specific medical result, may the plaintiff recover damages based on their reliance interest, including pain, suffering, and worsening of condition, or are damages limited to restitution of out-of-pocket expenses?

Conclusion

This case is a foundational decision in contract remedies, establishing the reliance Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo c

Legal Rule

For a breach of a special agreement between a physician and patient, Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla

Legal Analysis

The court analyzed the appropriate measure of damages for a breach of Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla pariatur. Excepteur sint occaecat cupidatat non proident, sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollit anim id est laborum. Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore ma

Flash-to-Full Case Opinions

Flash Summary

  • In a breach of contract action against a physician for a
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit, sed do eiusmod tempor incididunt ut labore et dolore magna aliqua. Ut enim ad minim veniam, quis nostrud exercitation ullamco laboris nisi ut aliquip ex ea commodo consequat. Duis aute irure dolor in reprehenderit in voluptate velit esse cillum dolore eu fugiat nulla p

Master Every Case Faster

Unlock premium legal analysis that helps you quickly understand complex cases, designed by Harvard Law and MIT graduates. It's about working smarter, not just harder.

Start 14-Day Free Trial

Thousands of students are already saving time and gaining clarity. Why not you?

Make crime pay. Become a lawyer.

✨ Enjoy an ad-free experience with LSD+