Brown v. Shyne
242 N.Y. 176, 151 N.E. 197 (1926)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The violation of a statute requiring a professional license is not, in itself, evidence of negligence in a malpractice action. A plaintiff must prove that the defendant's lack of skill or care, rather than the mere failure to obtain a license, was the proximate cause of the injury.
Facts:
- The plaintiff, Brown, hired the defendant, Shyne, a chiropractor, for treatment of a physical condition.
- Shyne did not possess a license to practice medicine in the State of New York, which was a violation of the Public Health Law.
- Shyne held himself out to the public as being capable of diagnosing and treating diseases.
- Brown received nine chiropractic treatments from Shyne.
- Following the ninth treatment, Brown became paralyzed.
- It was established that the paralysis was caused by the treatment Brown received from Shyne.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff Brown sued defendant Shyne in a New York trial court for damages resulting from alleged negligence.
- During the trial, the court permitted Brown to amend her complaint to allege that Shyne violated the Public Health Law by practicing medicine without a license.
- The trial court instructed the jury that Shyne's violation of the licensing statute could be considered 'some evidence' of negligence.
- A jury found in favor of Brown and awarded her damages.
- Shyne appealed the judgment to the Appellate Division, which unanimously affirmed the trial court's decision.
- The Appellate Division then granted Shyne leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals of New York, the state's highest court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
In a medical malpractice action, does a defendant's violation of a statute requiring a license to practice medicine constitute evidence of negligence?
Opinions:
Majority - Lehman, J.
No. A defendant's violation of a statute requiring a professional license does not constitute evidence of negligence. To recover for malpractice, the plaintiff must establish that their injury was proximately caused by the defendant's lack of the requisite skill and care, not merely by the failure to obtain a license. The court reasoned that possessing a license does not confer additional skill, nor does the lack of one establish a lack of skill in a specific instance. The injury must follow from the practitioner's negligence (a lack of skill or care), and this would not have been prevented if the defendant had possessed a license but still acted negligently. There is no logical connection between the failure to obtain a license and the specific negligent act that caused the injury.
Dissenting - Crane, J.
Yes. A defendant's violation of a statute requiring a professional license should be considered some evidence of negligence. The court should not hold an unlicensed practitioner to the standard of a licensed physician when the legislature has forbidden them from practicing at all. The very purpose of the Public Health Law is to protect the public from the exact type of harm that occurred in this case, which resulted from treatment by an unexamined and uncredentialed practitioner. When the defendant's illegal act of practicing medicine is the direct and proximate cause of the injury, the violation of the statute is logically relevant to the question of their negligence and capacity.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrows the application of the negligence per se doctrine by distinguishing between licensing statutes and specific safety statutes. It establishes the principle that a statutory violation is only evidence of negligence if there is a direct causal link between the violation itself and the harm suffered. This decision prevents juries from finding liability based on a defendant's status (unlicensed) rather than their conduct (actual lack of skill or care). It reinforces the common law tort requirement that a plaintiff must prove a specific breach of the standard of care that proximately caused the injury, even when the defendant was acting in violation of a professional licensing law.
Unlock the full brief for Brown v. Shyne