The husband of a Florida woman who died after a cosmetic procedure performed by him in his own clinic is now challenging the official cause of her death, claiming the medical examiner lacks the expertise to determine she succumbed to lidocaine toxicity. Dr. Ben Brown, a plastic surgeon, faces a manslaughter charge in the November 2023 death of his wife, Hillary Brown, a mother of three who also worked at his practice. The case has taken a dramatic turn with defense attorneys filing a motion to block the medical examiner from testifying that lidocaine poisoning killed her, arguing the doctor is not a qualified toxicologist.
Hillary Brown died seven days after undergoing a series of procedures at her husband’s office in Santa Rosa County, Florida. The day began with a scar revision on her abdomen, which she tolerated well, according to staff. After that, she was walking around and even mixed her own fat for transfer to her face. But when Dr. Brown began injecting numbing medication into her lips and around her eyes, her condition rapidly deteriorated. A 911 call placed by an office employee captured the chaos, with the caller reporting that a patient was having seizures after surgery.
The medical examiner, Dr. Deanna Oleski, ruled that Hillary Brown died from complications of lidocaine toxicity. But defense attorney Mark Omera, a high-profile criminal lawyer, has filed a motion for a Daubert hearing, seeking to exclude her testimony. In the motion, Omera points out that Dr. Oleski admitted during her deposition that she is not a toxicologist and has no specialized training in that field. He argues that allowing her to opine on lethal lidocaine levels would be highly prejudicial to Dr. Brown, especially since a Florida Department of Health hearing officer previously found that another expert credibly concluded lidocaine was not the cause.
The defense motion also reveals that Dr. Oleski received a letter from toxicologist Dr. Christopher Borgert in October 2025, which raised concerns about her conclusion. The letter cited medical data and science suggesting lidocaine toxicity could not have caused Hillary’s symptoms or death. Yet, Dr. Oleski testified that she did not make much of the letter, a stance that defense attorneys call troubling. They argue that a medical examiner who disregards conflicting scientific evidence from a qualified toxicologist should not be allowed to present a cause of death to a jury.
The case against Dr. Brown does not rest solely on the cause of death. Prosecutors allege that his negligence extended far beyond the injection. According to an arrest warrant, Hillary Brown had taken a number of pills before the surgery, and she prepared her own IV bags containing diluted xylazine, a local anesthetic. When those bags ran out, Dr. Brown allegedly poured undiluted containers into a bowl and began injecting her arms and face. Staff reported that Hillary complained of blurry vision and facial swelling, but Brown continued the procedure until she began convulsing.
Detectives also noted that Dr. Brown waited 10 to 15 minutes before calling 911, a delay that the Florida Department of Health cited when it suspended his medical license for a year. The state health board found that Brown failed to provide timely emergency care, but notably did not attribute Hillary’s death to lidocaine toxicity. This discrepancy is a key point for the defense, which argues that the medical board’s findings undermine the state’s criminal case.
Criminal defense attorney Tim Jansen, who is not involved in the case, said the Daubert motion is a significant challenge for prosecutors. If the judge rules that Dr. Oleski cannot testify about the cause of death, the state loses a critical piece of evidence. Jansen noted that the medical examiner relied on a rule-out method, eliminating other possibilities, but without toxicology expertise, her opinion may not meet the standard for expert testimony. He added that the defense will likely call its own experts to argue that Hillary’s death was a tragic accident, not a criminal act.
The state may still pursue a conviction based on Brown’s overall conduct, including his failure to call 911 and his alleged mismanagement of the procedure. But Jansen said that without a clear cause of death, proving manslaughter by culpable negligence becomes much harder. The jury would have to decide whether Brown’s actions were so reckless that they caused his wife’s death, even if the exact mechanism remains unclear. The defense will argue that surgery always carries risks and that Brown did everything he could to save her.
Dr. Brown remains free on bail as his trial approaches in August. He has pleaded not guilty to the manslaughter charge. The community in Santa Rosa County has been closely watching the case, with many expressing shock that a respected surgeon could be accused of causing his wife’s death. The defense has not yet filed a motion to change venue, but attorneys have hinted that pretrial publicity could make it difficult to find an impartial jury.
The Daubert hearing is expected to take place in the coming weeks, and its outcome could shape the entire trial. If the judge allows Dr. Oleski to testify, the state will have a strong foundation for its case. If not, prosecutors may be forced to rely on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of other medical experts. Either way, the case highlights the complex intersection of medicine, marriage, and the law, where a single procedure can unravel a family and a career.
Hillary Brown’s family has not publicly commented on the defense’s latest motion, but they have previously expressed a desire for justice. Her father has described Dr. Brown as having a godlike complex, believing he could fix anything. The trial, if it proceeds, will likely delve into the details of that November day, from the preparation of the IV bags to the frantic moments after Hillary began seizing. For now, the legal battle centers on one question: what truly killed Hillary Brown, and who is responsible?
https://www.youtube.com/embed/p4cXr2m9wTM
