Kosberg v. Washington Hospital Center, Inc., 20792.

Citation394 F.2d 947
Decision Date18 April 1968
Docket NumberNo. 20792.,20792.
PartiesEsther KOSBERG, Administratrix, Estate of Roberta Ann Clark, Appellant, v. WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CENTER, INC., et al., Appellees.
CourtUnited States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia)

Mr. Philip Shinberg, Washington, D.C., for appellant.

Mr. John L. Laskey, Washington, D.C., for appellee, Washington Hospital Center.

Mr. Gerald W. Farquhar, Washington, D.C., for appellee, Klein.

Mr. J. Joseph Barse, Washington, D.C., for appellee, Rudnai.

Before BAZELON, Chief Judge, and BURGER and LEVENTHAL, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

This is a wrongful death, malpractice action. Decedent was a newly married, 22-year-old girl whose medical problems began with symptoms suggestive of pregnancy. She was successively treated by a series of three doctors: a general practitioner, a psychiatrist, and an internist. The general practitioner, a defendant here, treated decedent for "morning sickness" and malnutrition and, when she did not improve significantly, referred her to the psychiatrist for treatment of a suspected emotional problem. The psychiatrist, also a defendant here, hospitalized decedent in defendant hospital and gave her electroshock therapy preceded and followed by administration of the drug thorazine. Decedent's condition thereupon became critical, and Dr. Schulman, the internist, was called in. He ordered various drugs for decedent, but she failed to respond and died two days after receiving the electroshock therapy.

Dr. Schulman was plaintiff's expert witness, and his opinion as to the cause of death differed in certain respects from the inferences arising during his cross-examination and from the testimony of Dr. Edmonds, the head of the hospital's autopsy service. At the close of plaintiff's case the trial judge directed verdicts for all three defendants. We affirm as to the hospital and the general practitioner but reverse as to the psychiatrist.

A prima facie case of medical malpractice must normally consist of evidence which establishes the applicable standard of care, demonstrates that this standard has been violated, and develops a causal relationship between the violation and the harm complained of.1 Plaintiff's case against the hospital is deficient on all three of these particulars, while her case against the general practitioner is devoid of evidence on the third essential — assuming, without deciding, that the first two factors were present.2

Evidence of a standard of care and its violation was also lacking in the case against the psychiatrist. But plaintiff was prevented from supplying these essentials when the trial judge ruled that Dr. Schulman was not qualified to testify concerning electroshock therapy. We think this was error. The fact that an internist is not a specialist in psychiatry or neurology does not preclude him from testifying about the physical effects of electroshock therapy and the ability of a person in decedent's condition to withstand this treatment. See Baerman v. Reisinger, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 180, 363 F.2d 309 (1966). Such testimony, if believed by the jury, might have established both the standard of care and its violation.

Moreover, on the third essential of plaintiff's case against the psychiatrist — evidence of causation — we think there was sufficient proof in the present state of the record to go to the jury. Dr. Schulman testified that in his expert opinion the cause of death was the consecutive administration of thorazine (a tranquilizer)...

To continue reading

Request your trial
46 cases
  • Dambacher by Dambacher v. Mallis
    • United States
    • Pennsylvania Superior Court
    • November 27, 1984
    ...Hospital, 270 Pa.Super. 127, 410 A.2d 1282 (1980) (anesthesiologist not qualified as to autopsy report); Cf. Kosberg v. Washington Hospital Center, 394 F.2d 947 (D.C.Cir.1968) (internist held qualified to testify as to effects of electroshock therapy, even though not a psychiatrist or neuro......
  • Morrison v. MacNamara
    • United States
    • D.C. Court of Appeals
    • October 2, 1979
    ...violated, and develops a causal relationship between the violation and the harm complained of." Kosberg v. Washington Hospital Center, Inc., 129 U.S. App.D.C. 322, 324, 394 F.2d 947, 949 (1968), quoted in Haven v. Randolph, 161 U.S.App. D.C. 150, 151, 494 F.2d 1069, 1070 (1974). In negligen......
  • Beins v. U.S.
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • December 7, 1982
    ...different than those in the cases cited by appellant in support of his argument for reversal. In Kosberg v. Washington Hospital Center, 394 F.2d 947 (D.C.Cir.1968) (per curiam), a wrongful death claim against a psychiatrist was completely stymied when the trial judge ruled that the physicia......
  • Canterbury v. Spence
    • United States
    • U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit
    • May 19, 1972
    ...296 F. 1006, 1007 (1924). 101 See Morse v. Moretti, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 158, 403 F.2d 564 (1968); Kosberg v. Washington Hosp. Center, Inc., 129 U.S. App.D.C. 322, 324, 394 F.2d 947, 949 (1968); Levy v. Vaughan, 42 U.S.App. D.C. 146, 153, 157 102 Shetter v. Rochelle, supra note 70, 409 P.2d at ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT