Heneberry v. Pharoan
158 A.3d 1087
| Md. Ct. Spec. App. | 2017Background
- In Oct. 2011 Heneberry underwent a laparoscopic appendectomy performed by Dr. Bashar Pharoan; surgical notes reported an uneventful procedure but a residual appendiceal stump (~3.2–3.5 cm) remained.
- Heneberry later experienced severe pain and required a second surgery by another physician to remove the appendiceal stump.
- Heneberry sued in Baltimore County Circuit Court alleging negligence (Count I), loss of consortium (Count II), and, by amended complaint, breach of contract (Count III) based on the claim that she contracted for removal of the entire appendix.
- The court denied Heneberry’s partial summary judgment motion on negligence (causation disputed), then granted Dr. Pharoan’s motion to dismiss Count III; the dismissal was treated on appeal as summary judgment because the court considered the consent form and deposition testimony.
- The trial proceeded on negligence and a jury found for Dr. Pharoan; Heneberry appealed the dismissal/summary judgment on the breach of contract claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a breach of contract claim lies from a surgeon’s failure to remove the entire appendix when the patient consented to an appendectomy | Heneberry: an appendectomy contractually obligated removal of the whole appendix; leaving a stump breached that contract | Pharoan: absent an express separate promise/warranty, the claim is medical malpractice (tort) not contract; consent form disclaims guarantees | Court: Affirmed—no separate promise alleged; claim sounds in negligence so summary judgment for Pharoan on breach of contract was proper |
| Whether the trial court erred by considering extraneous materials (consent form, deposition) on a motion to dismiss | Heneberry: court improperly relied on materials outside the complaint | Pharoan: materials were central and properly considered; parties had fair opportunity to brief | Court: Materials were either central (consent form) or showed absence of a necessary fact; treating dismissal as summary judgment was appropriate and not prejudicial |
Key Cases Cited
- Dingle v. Belin, 358 Md. 354 (2000) (recognizes breach-of-contract theory in medical cases only where physician makes promise/warranty independent of ordinary skill-based obligation)
- Sard v. Hardy, 281 Md. 432 (1977) (physician is not a guarantor of results; absent express warranty a malpractice claim sounds in tort)
- Benson v. Mays, 245 Md. 632 (1967) (doctor–patient relationship is contractual in nature but failure to exercise requisite skill is tortious)
- Robins v. Finestone, 308 N.Y. 543 (1955) (contract claim allowed where physician allegedly warranted a specific result)
- Custodio v. Bauer, 251 Cal. App. 2d 303 (1967) (breach of contract viable where plaintiff alleges an express warranty to effect a particular result)