Crime Fix with Angenette Levy - Accused 'Killer' Plastic Surgeon's Big Blow in Wife's Death

Episode Date: July 8, 2026

A routine cosmetic procedure turned fatal when Hillary Brown tragically died following complications at her husband's medical clinic in Navarre, Florida. Now, plastic surgeon Dr. Ben Brown faces charges of manslaughter by culpable negligence as a tense courtroom battle unfolded over the case's medical examiner. Law&Crime's Angenette Levy breaks down the judge's crucial new ruling on whether the state's key testimony will be heard by a jury in this episode of Crime Fix — a daily show covering the biggest stories in crime.Host:Angenette Levy  https://twitter.com/Angenette5Guest: John DayCRIME FIX PRODUCTION:Head of Social Media, YouTube - Bobby SzokeSocial Media Management - Vanessa BeinVideo Editing - Daniel CamachoGuest Booking - Alyssa Fisher & Diane KayeSTAY UP-TO-DATE WITH THE LAW&CRIME NETWORK:Watch Law&Crime Network on YouTubeTV: https://bit.ly/3td2e3yWhere To Watch Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3akxLK5Sign Up For Law&Crime's Daily Newsletter: https://bit.ly/LawandCrimeNewsletterRead Fascinating Articles From Law&Crime Network: https://bit.ly/3td2IqoLAW&CRIME NETWORK SOCIAL MEDIA:Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/lawandcrime/Twitter: https://twitter.com/LawCrimeNetworkFacebook: https://www.facebook.com/lawandcrimeTwitch: https://www.twitch.tv/lawandcrimenetworkTikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@lawandcrimeSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

I know that's your determination, but that wasn't my question, was it? That was my answer. You were raising the temperature of this conversation and be careful. I don't apologize. Florida plastic surgeon, Dr. Ben Brown is accused of killing his own wife during a cosmetic procedure, but the defense says the science doesn't support that. You are not a toxicologist, correct? I am not a toxicologist.

It will be up to the jury to decide. which are the two experts to believe. I'll take you inside that tense courtroom battle and why the judge's decision could become one of the most important rulings before Dr. Brown's trial ever starts. I'm Ann Janette Levy and this is Crime Fix. Hillary Brown was a mother.

She had two daughters, a son, a family. She was married to plastic surgeon Dr. Ben Brown and she worked with him at his clinic. On November 21st, 2023, she walked into that clinic for something that should have been a routine procedure. Nothing she had not done before, but she never walked out. And her is a nominal one police fire ambulance.

I have an emergency. All right. Who do you need police fire or ambulance? Ambulance. We have an unstable patient. Okay. Tell me the address. Hello?

Ma'am, what's your address? Okay. Are you there with the patient now? Yes. Okay. We do have to. help on the way. What exactly happened? She was having surgery. This is a plastic surgery office. She's unstable. She's having seizures. And seven days later, Hillary Brown was dead. Investigators say

Hillary was undergoing multiple procedures, abdominal scar revision, arm liposection, lip injections, laser treatment around her eyes. Witnesses said she was awake and talking through most of it. She even helped prepare her own IV bags. But then the procedure started to go wrong. Witnesses said she started convulsing. Staff asked Dr. Brown if they should call 911 saying he told them to wait. And she never regained consciousness. Just let me inform you, I guess.

I don't see reason for more now, but basically we got a med call, had a doctor's office here in Navarre where I guess a plastic surgeon was working on his wife and then we were told she went into cardiac arrest. I guess Seville is going to just get all their names and do a quick info on it just in case something comes back where you know somebody says, oh, he was trying to kill her, you know. Months later, Dr. Brown is charged with manslaughter by culpable negligence After the medical examiner determined Hillary Brown died from complications of lytocaine toxicity. But the defense says the medical examiner shouldn't be allowed to testify that lytocaine toxicity caused Hillary Brown's death, arguing she isn't qualified to make that determination.

The defense filed a motion asking the judge to limit that portion of her testimony, and this week the judge heard the defense's motion. Dr. Deanna Oleski took the stand, and during questioning, she acknowledged, that she isn't a clinician or a toxicologist? Lytocaine toxicity is a clinical diagnosis. I am not a clinician. No, sir. Correct.

I would not ever swear that I am an expert in as a toxicologist. I did not determine what concentration was used. I had no idea what percent strength, Lidecane Dr. Brown had kept in his office. I was trying to differentiate something that you would take directly from a vial, 1% or 2%, versus something of the tumessant solution that is made. Okay. And to be clear, let's just clear that a little bit.

The substance out of the vial, I think you said it might be 1%, it might be 2%, right? And have you looked into that being a standard concentration of lytocaine when it's delivered in those bottles? I have looked into it, and yes, 1% or 2% are the commonest concentrations. Toxicology is a field that studies toxins and drugs. Okay. And their effect on the body? It can, yes. Well, I mean, that's the whole purpose of toxicologists, right, to determine what a drug or substance will do to a body, correct? They can also determine what chemical it is, for example, outside the body.

And would you acknowledge a toxicologist would be more aware and sort of up-to-date on such matters as half-life and the effect of certain toxins on the body than you would be? I believe that they have a better understanding because of their specialty of, yes, how certain drugs may interact with each other. The state responded that Dr. Oleski wasn't testifying as a toxicologist. She was testifying as the medical examiner who determined Hillary Brown's cause of death with all available information, but the defense kept pushing. they wanted to know where she got her information specifically the claim that undiluted lytocaine had been used. Where did you get that information from that it was quote undiluted in quotes? I received that information as part of law enforcement's investigation in their interview with witnesses.

Did you get any of that from any medical record? I did not. Did you actually get, did you review the medical record to suggest that the opposite was true, that there was no undeloded liability user administer. You did review the medical records in their entirety, correct? I did, yes. And you did include and did not review his clinical notes, correct? Correct.

And just so clear, the clinical records, clinical notes from the doctor, they were pretty complete within on. I, I, um, they, when I eventually finally got them, they were done for the usual standard of care that I have seen. Right. And they included everything that he did give, the amount of drugs that gave beforehand,

the amount of salivate that he was using during the procedures, everything that you would normally see in political notes, correct? Yes. Okay. And there's nothing you know so good enough to suggest in any level of undiluted salivate, wasn't it? I did not recall anything in his notes where he included in his line item of drugs that he had given her to include undiluted saliative.

The defense also asked about a lytocaine blood level draw at the hospital and whether Dr. Oleski knew what that result was, and that's where things quickly became tense. So you know from the medical records that there was a blood level of lichane taken of the patient. A hospital lytocaine level was drawn. Yes. And where did it come from? Where'd what come from? Blood? Eye fluid, vitrious fluid.

I hope it was eye fluid in a live person, but I believe it came from the blood. I don't know if it was a peripheral blood or a central arterial stick. And what was the level? I don't recall, I don't have that in front of me right now. But I said it was 3.4, would you contest that? It was high enough to cause seizures and clinical symptoms

of lytocaine toxicity. I know that's your determination, but that wasn't my question, was it? That was my answer. Based upon your experience as a medical doctor and having seen this for a while, and having done this time, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on,

all right, call on, sorry. Mr. Amara, be careful on how you asked the questions. You're raising the temperature of this conversation, and be careful not to. I apologize. The defense had one more argument here, and this is a big one.

Something else was also addressed, a separate Florida Department of Health hearing involving Dr. Brown's medical license. According to the defense motion, in that hearing, a toxicology expert, Dr. Christopher Borgert, testified that Lytocaine was not the cause of Hillary's death. And according to the defense, the hearing officer found his testimony credible, and the department later withdrew lytocaine toxicity as a basis for discipline against Dr. Brown's license. So the argument from the defense is if the Department of Health didn't rely on that theory, why should a criminal jury? Brown's attorney then called Dr. Christopher Borgert to the stand,

the same pharmacologist and toxicologist who testified in that Department of Health case. And here's what he said. I received a PhD and medical sciences from the University of Florida Department of Pharmacology in environmental therapeutics. I did a postdoctoral fellowship in toxicology at the University of Florida Center for Environmental and Human Toxicology. In every published example,

every published example, levels are going up still increasing. I'll draw it for your, backwards for you, still increasing backwards to me so that you can think about it from left to right in your context, still increasing at six hours. at six hours. In no case is a level higher at a previous time point. That's one scenario.

So that scenario would predict that Hillary Brown would be well below five, what's universally considered, even considering sensitive individuals, below five nanograms per mill is within the therapeutic range. Above 1.5 nanograms per mill is within the therapeutic range. Above 1.5 nanograms, grams per mill to five is non-toxic. And I apologize for going on that. I was getting into the weeds, but what I'm trying to convey is that her methodology failed to do that. She failed to break out those various scenarios and say, okay, under one scenario, what information,

you know, what does that 3.4 tell us if she didn't lay out those scenarios and then systematically evaluate them to determine which one? made sense, she instead used a clinical diagnosis and then seemed to pick and choose various facts to sort of fit a narrative. After hours of testimony, the judge made a ruling. She is our chief medical examiner has been for several years. She has a requisite schooling. I think it was 13 years, if I remember correctly, of training to be a medical examiner, a forensic pathologist. She's also conducted over 2,000 post-mormant examinations. At the end of the day, I believe the testimony here today has established that Dr. Leski had sufficient facts and data.

Her principles and methods of how she came to her conclusion are reliable, and she reliably applied those principles and methods. It will be up to the jury to decide which are the two experts to believe. I think there are three possible scenarios. One is that he, in fact, did not improperly administer anything. That is possible. Another possibility is he accidentally administered something incorrectly and didn't realize it. It's where he truly believes he administered it correctly. So the medical records would reflect he administered it correctly.

Or we have to consider the fact these records, although medical records, I don't know that they are closed with the same reliability as medical. records by doctors who are not also the defendant so there is the third possibility that he realized his mistake but didn't document in the medical records so all that I find that the motion should be denied the jury should be allowed to hear dr. Oleski's explanation as to what she did and the conclusion she reached just as the jury should be allowed to hear from the defense perspective why they think that this conclusion is increasing

Correct? Meaning the medical examiner can testify about all of her findings, but as for when the case actually gets to a jury, that could be a while. The judge also ordered that the trial date be pushed back and a new date will be set in October. But the question remains, did Dr. Brown actually kill his wife or is the state chasing a theory that doesn't hold up? So I want to bring in John Day. He's a criminal defense attorney in the state of New Mexico. He's done complex medical cases before. All around good guy, John, thanks so much for coming on. What is your thought on the lytocaine toxicity opinion being allowed to be offered at trial by the prosecution after this contentious hearing? Thanks for having me, Anthony. So, you know,

sometimes if you're the prosecutors, be careful what you wish for because the judge allowing the testimony of this I don't think in the view of a lot of people sort of questionable medical examiner is not necessarily a loss for the defense now they get to challenge the medical examiner on her testimony on her the fact that she is not a toxicologist the fact that there is a toxicologist who contradicts essentially what she says I mean this is a it's like handing a Christmas present to the defense in a way because they have lots of ground to cover that's going to be favorable to them in front of a jury on how exactly the medical examiner

came to her conclusion, what information she rejected, why she rejected the information, and what her qualifications are. So if you're trying to establish as a defense lawyer in the eyes of the jury that there is reasonable doubt, that's a gift. And so I don't see this necessarily as a bad thing if you're on the defense. That's really interesting. And, you know, I've covered enough criminal cases. at trial, you've represented enough defendants to know that a medical examiner or a coroner

can take all of the available information presented to them and come up with a determination about cause of death. But what is so interesting to me is that the Department of Health looked at this lytocaine toxicity issue and said, well, we're not going to use this as a basis to sanction him or to ding him on his license because we don't, think it holds validity. So I'm kind of confounded as to how people, medical professionals on the Department of Health side of this can be seeing this and saying, oh, we don't believe that this was part of her cause of death. But then the pathologist, the ME, is like, oh, yes, it is. So I know that, I know doctors can have different opinions. That happens all of the time. But it just seems awfully

risky. Well, let's take a 30,000 foot look from above. If you are the defense, You say, okay, who's prosecuting this case, the state of Florida? Who is the Department of Health for the state of Florida? And what are they saying? You say to the jury, you've got the state of Florida, and they can't make up their mind. You've got the two branches, the prosecution and the health department, and they're contradicting each other. Can you convict this defendant based on the fact that the state of Florida doesn't know apparently what it's doing?

I mean, that's the line you might take in front of the jury at closing. I mean, you want to point out that you would expect that the prosecution would have its ducks in a row. A lot of questions about why they even went down this road, why they didn't anticipate this, and why we're even at this place. If you're the prosecutor, you've got to be a bit red-faced, a bit embarrassed that you haven't planned ahead or thought ahead to see how the defense is going to play this. But you tell the jury the state doesn't know, they can't make up their mind. They can't tell you one way or the other. So why should you convict? well and that's it does seem like you're raising some reasonable doubt here however we still have

all of these other horrifically bad facts for dr ben brown i mean his wife it was at his office mixing up things for her own procedures she was getting procedures performed by her husband maybe that's not unusual but it seems like maybe something you shouldn't do you have all these other people who worked there who possibly are going to testify that, yeah, I didn't think this was quite kosher, you know, and we wanted to call 911, and he told us to hold off because he had it under control. So there are a number of incredibly bad facts playing against Dr. Brown, because his wife was seizing up and convulsing, and he's not letting people who work with him and work for him call 911. Right. And again, if you remove the toxicity,

the toxicology part, there still is, as you said, a lot of bad facts. That is not the thing that this case is going to hang on. It's one part of it, and it's one part that the defense, if you're, you know, and he's got great defense team on this case, but it's one part of it, and there are a lot of other things they've got to deal with a lot of other things in the prosecution's favor. So even without the toxicology issue in front of the jury, they can still look at the rest of it and say, yeah, I mean, this,

we believe what the prosecution says as far as the actions or the inactions of the doctor, the husband, who, by the way, you think when your wife is on the table, you're going to take some type of extra care in what you're doing. So, yeah, without the toxicology, plenty of other things that the jury can use to convict. But if you're the defense, you've got to jump on what you've got to establish some kind of reasonable doubt and argue that you can't convict this guy based on this. don't even have a reliable cause of death and there's disagreement. So the defense has to grab for what they can, and they're doing that in this case.

They certainly are, and you're right, he does have a really good defense team. Mark O'Meara is a famed criminal defense attorney from Florida. He represented George Zimmerman in the Trayvon Martin case. He's handled many other big high-profile cases. He's a very good lawyer. but we still have a woman at the end of the day who was undergoing many procedures at her husband's office who later died. And, you know, I'm wondering, too, if they're going to go down the road that, oh, yes, she could have been saved, but something happened at the hospital. I mean, who knows what they're going to say, you know, because there's that whole other part of this where she was in the hospital for seven days.

and she was on life support, essentially, in receiving treatment. So I think there's that question about this case as well. Yeah, a lot of intervening actions that the defense is going to point to. I mean, this is not, even though the prosecution has some good facts, it's not, you know, that's why these cases go to trial because there's both sides think they've got something, but there's risk on both sides. The defense obviously has a lot of tools in the toolbox as far as some, other cause or the contribution or what was she taking ahead of time and you know

were these is there some kind of determination of what what she ingested ahead before the operation a lot of facts here but if you're the jury you're going through this the same discussion that you and I are having right now if you're the defense you want the jurors to be going through you want them to be thinking what are the other reasons that this could have happened yeah there was some sloppiness yeah there was some inattention but was it does it rise to the level that we can convict this person. And even though they're not supposed to think about it,

does this person deserve to go to prison? If you're not supposed to do that, they do. I'm wondering, too, does this case actually go to trial? I mean, the prosecutors obviously feel very confident, but it does seem like this defense team could raise some issues at trial that could spell reasonable doubt. Yeah, do they have momentum? I mean, do they feel like they are,

moving down the track with a lot of speed and that they feel confident themselves that in front of a jury, a really good defense team like the doctor has, can raise these doubts with the jury and that they can decide we're not going to convict of this manslaughter chart. So a lot of it still has to be determined. This ruling by the judge on the testimony is one step. And as I say, I think if you're the defense, you're like, we don't care. We can use the lack of specialty by the doctor. We can use the fact that there's this contradiction by the state as far as the toxicity, the toxicology issue. I mean, there's a lot that they have.

And so if you're feeling good as a defense lawyer, you tell your client, you know, they might float a plea. They might try to get something out of this. If you're the prosecutor, you do not want to lose that trial in such a high profile case. So, yeah, there's always a chance that there'll be some kind of a plea. but if you're a good defense lawyer, you don't open the door to any kind of doubt until you've got something that's in your client's best interest. Well, I will be interested to see where this case goes moving forward. The state seems very confident, but Marco Mira has a good track record. I know that.

So I'll be keeping a close eye on this. Thank you, John Day, for your time. Appreciate it. Thank you. Good to see you. Dr. Brown remains free on bail as his case makes its way through the system. we'll keep an eye on this for you. That's it for this episode of Crime Fix. I'm Anjanette Levy. Thanks so much for being with me. I'll see you back here next time.