5 N.Y.2d 16, Ferrara v. Galluchio

Citation5 N.Y.2d 16, 176 N.Y.S.2d 996
Party NameFerrara v. Galluchio
Case DateJune 25, 1958
CourtNew York Court of Appeals

Page 16

5 N.Y.2d 16

176 N.Y.S.2d 996

Eleanor FERRARA et al., Respondents,

v.

Anthony C. GALLUCHIO et al., Appellants.

New York Court of Appeals

June 25, 1958.

Page 17

[176 N.Y.S.2d 997] Walter G. Evans and Joseph Kane, New York City, for appellants.

Page 18

William L. Shumate, James S. Regan, Jr., and William F. X. Geoghan, Jr., New York City, for respondents.

CONWAY, Chief Judge.

Plaintiff wife, who was suffering from bursitis in the right shoulder, received a series of X-ray treatments from defendants, doctors specializing in X-ray therapy. After the third treatment she experienced a nauseous feeling. She told one of the defendants about it before he administered the fourth treatment. He prescribed certain pills which she purchased and took. At the conclusion of the sixth treatment she still had a pain in her right shoulder and one of the defendants suggested that if the pain continued she should come back for a seventh treatment. The pain persisted and three days later she returned and the seventh treatment was administered. Subsequent thereto, the shoulder began to itch, turned pink, then red, and blisters formed. These blisters ruptured and the skin peeled, leaving the raw flesh of the shoulder exposed. Scabs formed and lasted several months, a few as long as five or six months and one lasted several years, leaving the shoulder with a permanently marginated area of skin approximately three by five inches exhibiting telangiectasia, hyperpigmentation, depigmentation and a suggestion of atrophy. This condition was diagnosed as chronic radiodermatitis which was caused by the X-ray therapy. While the blisters were still present the plaintiff went back to the defendants and showed them the condition of her shoulder. They gave her a prescription for some salve which she procured and used.

On December 3, 1951, approximately two years after the treatments, the plaintiff was referred by her attorney to a dermatologist for examination. After taking a history and making an examination the dermatologist prescribed a substance used in the treatment of radiodermatitis and advised the plaintiff to

Page 19

have her shoulder checked every six months inasmuch as the area of the burn might become cancerous.

The instant action for malpractice was predicated upon three theories: (1) that the total number of Roentgens (1,400) applied to the plaintiff was excessive; (2) that the total number of Roentgens was excessive when applied to a single field or portal of the shoulder area; and (3) that in any event the amount applied was excessive insofar as this particular patient was concerned and the defendants could and should have been aware of this when the plaintiff complained of nausea before the fourth treatment, in that it is unusual for nausea to result from X-ray treatment to the shoulder and was under the circumstances a possible indication that the patient was sensitive to radiation and the dosage thereafter should have been discontinued or reduced. In addition to adducing [176 N.Y.S.2d 998] evidence with respect to the treatment and the injuries, the plaintiff offered the testimony of a duly qualified radiologist who supported the three theories of malpractice. To disprove the plaintiffs' case the defendants, in addition to so testifying themselves, produced four duly qualified radiologists who testified that the dosage was not excessive under any view of the facts. Plaintiff also introduced, on the issue of mental anguish, the testimony of a neuro-psychiatrist to the effect...

To continue reading

Request your trial
175 practice notes
  • 409 P.2d 74 (Ariz.App. 1965), 2 CA-CIV 95, Shetter v. Rochelle
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • December 17, 1965
    ...that it would constitute bad medical practice. This is suggested by the results of two recent cases, Ferrara v. Gulluchio [Galluchio] [5 N.Y.2d 16 [176 N.Y.S.2d 996], 152 N.E.2d 249 [71 A.L.R.2d 331], 1958] and Furniss v. Fitchett, [N.Z.L.R. 398, 1958], decided respectively in New York and ......
  • 41 Cal.App.4th 744, A071386, Macy's California, Inc. v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California California Court of Appeals
    • December 26, 1995
    ...three examples: (a) a plaintiff who feared cancer after being negligently burned during X-ray treatments (Ferrara v. Galluchio (1958) 5 N.Y.2d 16, 21-22 [176 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1000, 152 N.E.2d 249, 71 A.L.R.2d 331]), (b) a plaintiff who, because of traumatic breast injury, feared breast cancer ......
  • 48 Cal.App.3d 917, 13899, Jarchow v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • California California Court of Appeals
    • June 5, 1975
    ...negligence actions for mental distress. (Battalla v. State, supra, 10 N.Y.2d 237, 219 N.Y.S.2d 34, 176 N.E.2d 729; Ferrara v. Galluchio, 5 N.Y.2d 16, 176 N.Y.S.2d 996, 152 N.E.2d 249; 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts (1956) § 18.4, pp. 1036--1038.) Thus, the use of the 'impact or inju......
  • 682 N.E.2d 145 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1997), 1-96-0067, Doe v. Northwestern University
    • United States
    • Illinois Court of Appeals of Illinois
    • June 17, 1997
    ...See Wetherill, 565 F.Supp. at 1559-60; Vallery v. Southern Baptist Hospital, 630 So.2d 861, 866 (La.App.1993); Ferrara v. Galluchio, 5 N.Y.2d 16, 176 N.Y.S.2d 996, 152 N.E.2d 249 (1958); Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Cox, 481 So.2d 517, 528-29 (Fla.App.1985); but seeAnderson v. Welding T......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
174 cases
  • 409 P.2d 74 (Ariz.App. 1965), 2 CA-CIV 95, Shetter v. Rochelle
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • December 17, 1965
    ...that it would constitute bad medical practice. This is suggested by the results of two recent cases, Ferrara v. Gulluchio [Galluchio] [5 N.Y.2d 16 [176 N.Y.S.2d 996], 152 N.E.2d 249 [71 A.L.R.2d 331], 1958] and Furniss v. Fitchett, [N.Z.L.R. 398, 1958], decided respectively in New York and ......
  • 41 Cal.App.4th 744, A071386, Macy's California, Inc. v. Superior Court
    • United States
    • California California Court of Appeals
    • December 26, 1995
    ...three examples: (a) a plaintiff who feared cancer after being negligently burned during X-ray treatments (Ferrara v. Galluchio (1958) 5 N.Y.2d 16, 21-22 [176 N.Y.S.2d 996, 1000, 152 N.E.2d 249, 71 A.L.R.2d 331]), (b) a plaintiff who, because of traumatic breast injury, feared breast cancer ......
  • 48 Cal.App.3d 917, 13899, Jarchow v. Transamerica Title Ins. Co.
    • United States
    • California California Court of Appeals
    • June 5, 1975
    ...negligence actions for mental distress. (Battalla v. State, supra, 10 N.Y.2d 237, 219 N.Y.S.2d 34, 176 N.E.2d 729; Ferrara v. Galluchio, 5 N.Y.2d 16, 176 N.Y.S.2d 996, 152 N.E.2d 249; 2 Harper & James, The Law of Torts (1956) § 18.4, pp. 1036--1038.) Thus, the use of the 'impact or inju......
  • 682 N.E.2d 145 (Ill.App. 1 Dist. 1997), 1-96-0067, Doe v. Northwestern University
    • United States
    • Illinois Court of Appeals of Illinois
    • June 17, 1997
    ...See Wetherill, 565 F.Supp. at 1559-60; Vallery v. Southern Baptist Hospital, 630 So.2d 861, 866 (La.App.1993); Ferrara v. Galluchio, 5 N.Y.2d 16, 176 N.Y.S.2d 996, 152 N.E.2d 249 (1958); Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. Cox, 481 So.2d 517, 528-29 (Fla.App.1985); but seeAnderson v. Welding T......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 firm's commentaries