Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Kaplan v. Mayo Clinic
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
947 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (2013)
Can a plaintiff recover for mental anguish in a breach of contract action? We explore that question in Kaplan versus Mayo Clinic.
Elliot Kaplan was hospitalized after experiencing severe abdominal pain. After some testing, including a needle biopsy, Kaplan was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.
Kaplan sought a second opinion from the Mayo Clinic.
Doctor Lawrence Burgert, a Mayo pathologist, reviewed the biopsy slides prepared by the initial doctor Nagorney allegedly told Caplan that he would perform a biopsy of the mass during the surgery and would halt the procedure if the biopsy showed no signs of cancer.
Doctor Nagorney performed the surgery as planned, but didn't perform the promised intraoperative biopsy.
A postoperative examination of Kaplan's pancreatic tissue revealed that Kaplan never had cancer.
Kaplan and his wife Jean filed suit against Mayo, doctor Burgert, and doctor Nagorney for, among other things, breach of contract and negligence.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of doctor Negorney, and the case against Mayo and doctor Burgert went to trial.
At the conclusion of the Caplans case in chief, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law against the Caplins on their breach of contract claim.
Thereafter, the jury also returned a verdict in favor of Mayo and doctor Berger on the negligence claim.
On appeal, the eighth circuit affirmed as to the negligence claim, but reversed as to the breach of contract claim.
The court concluded that a reasonable jury could have found that doctor Nagorney, acting on Mayo's behalf, formed a contract with Kaplan when he stated that he would perform a biopsy and breached that contract when he failed to do so.
The court remanded the case for further proceedings.
On remand, Mayo filed a motion in limine, asking the district court to prohibit the Caplans from submitting evidence of emotional pain and suffering to prove damages in their breach of contract claim.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/kaplan-v-mayo-clinic-947-f-supp-2d-1001-2013
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/kaplan-v-mayo-clinic-947-f-supp-2d-1001-2013
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Kaplan v. Mayo Clinic
United States District Court for the District of Minnesota
947 F. Supp. 2d 1001 (2013)
Can a plaintiff recover for mental anguish in a breach of contract action? We explore that question in Kaplan versus Mayo Clinic.
Elliot Kaplan was hospitalized after experiencing severe abdominal pain. After some testing, including a needle biopsy, Kaplan was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer.
Kaplan sought a second opinion from the Mayo Clinic.
Doctor Lawrence Burgert, a Mayo pathologist, reviewed the biopsy slides prepared by the initial doctor Nagorney allegedly told Caplan that he would perform a biopsy of the mass during the surgery and would halt the procedure if the biopsy showed no signs of cancer.
Doctor Nagorney performed the surgery as planned, but didn't perform the promised intraoperative biopsy.
A postoperative examination of Kaplan's pancreatic tissue revealed that Kaplan never had cancer.
Kaplan and his wife Jean filed suit against Mayo, doctor Burgert, and doctor Nagorney for, among other things, breach of contract and negligence.
The district court granted summary judgment in favor of doctor Negorney, and the case against Mayo and doctor Burgert went to trial.
At the conclusion of the Caplans case in chief, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law against the Caplins on their breach of contract claim.
Thereafter, the jury also returned a verdict in favor of Mayo and doctor Berger on the negligence claim.
On appeal, the eighth circuit affirmed as to the negligence claim, but reversed as to the breach of contract claim.
The court concluded that a reasonable jury could have found that doctor Nagorney, acting on Mayo's behalf, formed a contract with Kaplan when he stated that he would perform a biopsy and breached that contract when he failed to do so.
The court remanded the case for further proceedings.
On remand, Mayo filed a motion in limine, asking the district court to prohibit the Caplans from submitting evidence of emotional pain and suffering to prove damages in their breach of contract claim.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/kaplan-v-mayo-clinic-947-f-supp-2d-1001-2013
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/kaplan-v-mayo-clinic-947-f-supp-2d-1001-2013
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
