Los Alamos Medical Center v. Coe, 5712
| Decision Date | 08 September 1954 |
| Docket Number | No. 5712,5712 |
| Citation | 1954 NMSC 90,58 N.M. 686,275 P.2d 175,50 A.L.R.2d 1033 |
| Parties | , 50 A.L.R.2d 1033 LOS ALAMOS MEDICAL CENTER, Inc., a Corporation, Cross-Appellee, v. Joseph S. COE, Jean S. Coe, Appellees and Cross-Appellants, Charles A. Behney, Appellant. |
| Court | New Mexico Supreme Court |
F. A. Catron and Thomas B. Catron, III, Santa Fe, for appellant and cross-appellee.
A. L. Zinn, Dean S. Zinn and Frank B. Zinn, Santa Fe, for appellees and cross-appellants.
This is an appeal from a judgment awarding damages for injuries allegedly resulting from malpractice. The action was orginally brought by Los Alamos Medical Center, Inc. against appellee, Joseph S. Coe, on account. On motion, appellee Jean S. Coe, his wife, was made a cross complainant, and appellant and Dr. Roscoe S. Wilcox were made cross-defendants. The account was not disputed and judgment was rendered accordingly. By counterclaim appellees alleged that the Medical Center, through its employees Dr. Wilcox and appellant Behney, negligently administered and prescribed morphine for self-administration without supervision in such amounts and frequency as to cause her addiction. It is alleged that as a result of her addiction, her health was greatly impaired and that she suffered great pain in effecting a 'withdrawal.' They seek damages for such wrongful acts. The husband seeks consequential damages for loss of consortium of his wife and for medical expenses in a separate amount. The cross-defendants filed separate answers denying her addiction and their negligence as a cause thereof. Dr. Behney further alleges that all morphine prescribed or administered by him was made upon the insistent demands of appellees after having warned them of the dangers incident to the use of such drug; that if he were negligent, the Coes were guilty of contributory negligence as a proximate cause of the alleged injuries. Dr. Wilcox, and likewise the Medical Center, urged the same defenses as Dr. Behney. The Medical Center as a further defense pleaded immunity from liability by reason of being a non-profit corporation, engaged in the operation of a hospital and medical center for the purpose of providing medical, dental and hospital services and care without profit. At the close of the evidence, the cause was dismissed as to Dr. Wilcox. The issues were submitted to a jury which returned its verdict in favor of the Medical Center, and awarded both compensatory and punitive damages against Dr. Behney. Judgment was entered on the verdict and Dr. Behney brings the judgment here for review.
The main question is the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the verdict. In this regard, all conflicts in the evidence must be resolved in favor of the successful party and all reasonable inferences indulged in to support the judgment, and all evidence and inferences to the contrary must be disregarded. Little v. Johnson, 56 N.M. 232, 242 P.2d 1000. Mrs. Coe was admitted to the hospital on several occasions. On March 28, 1950, she was admitted for dilation and curettage. She again entered the hospital April 16, 1950 for similar treatment. On June 6, 1950, she was admitted for a major operation, separation of adhesions and supra-vaginal hysterectomy. The latter operation was performed by appellant. Subsequently, on June 13, 1950, she entered the hospital for removal of intestinal obstructions and was finally discharged therefrom July 15, 1950. During all this time she received narcotics in some form or another. It seems Dr. Behney did not perform the latter operation, nevertheless, Mrs. Coe again became his patient on July 25 and remained such until November 3, 1950, at which time she went to Los Angeles, California and entered the Good Samaritan Hospital in Los Angeles, California, where she was diagnosed as a morphine addict after surgery. The amount, kind and quantity of narcotics prescribed and used by Mrs. Coe as shown by the hospital records is as follows:
"DATE DRUG DOSE QUANTITY DOCTOR
-----------------------------------------------------
3-28-50 Demerol .05 12 Shafer
4-4-50 " .05 3 Behney
4-8-50
4-14-50 Codein .061 12 Behney
4-15-50 Demerol .05 3 Behney
4-18-50 M. S. .011 10 Behney
4-18-50 Codein .032 10 Behney
4-21-50 M. S. .011 10 Behney
4-25-50 M. S. .011 12 Behney
4-27-50 " " .011 12 Behney
4-27-50 Demerol .05 30 Behney
5-2-50 M. S. .011 12 Behney
5-24-50 " " .014 6 Shafer
5-26-50 " " .016 6 Hawley
6-6-50
6-13-50
7-22-50 M. S. .008 10 Wilcox
7-28-50 " " .011 20 Behney
8-2-50 " " gr. 1/6 20 Behney
8-5-50 Demerol .05 30 Behney
8-6-50 M. S. gr. 1/6 20 Hawley
8-11-50 " " gr. 1/6 20 Hawley
8-15-50 " " gr. 1/6 15 Hawley
8-17-50 " " .011 20 Behney
8-25-50 " " .011 20 Behney
8-28-50 " " .011 20 Behney
8-28-50 Codein (APC) .032 20 Behney
9-1-50 M. S. .011 20 Behney
9-5-50 " " .011 20 Behney
9-5-50 Codein (APC) .032 30 Behney
9-8-50 M. S. .011 20 Behney
9-12-50 " " .011 20 Behney
9-20-50 " " .011 20 Behney
9-23-50 " " .011 20 Behney
9-27-50 " " .011 20 Behney
9-29-50 M. S. .011 20 Behney
10-2-50 " " .011 20 Behney
10-5-50 " " .011 20 Behney
10-7-50 M. S. Sol. 20cc- .210 Behney
10-12-50 " " 20cc-G.210 Behney
10-16-50 " " 20cc- .200 Behney
10-18-50 " " 20cc- .194 Behney
10-23-50 " " 20cc- .194 Behney
10-26-50 " " 20cc- .194 Behney
10-27-50 " " 20cc- .194 Behney
10-31-50 " " 20cc- .194 Behney"
As previously stated, Mrs. Coe became Dr. Behney's patient on July 25, 1950, the date she was discharged from the Medical Center. After returning to her home she began to complain of severe pains and appellees consulted Dr. Behney about self-administration of narcotics at home and this was agreeable to Dr. Behney. The husband, son, daughter, son-in-law, and Mrs. Coe herself, all administered morphine to her by hypodermic injections. Actually, from July 25, 1950 to November 3, 1950, Dr. Behney made no calls to their home nor did he treat her organic trouble except to make two or three pelvic examinations. When she would complain of pain, they would phone appellant and he would issue a prescription for morphine to be administered for relief of pain as needed, and they were to be the judge in this respect. This continued until the Coes themselves decided that she was not recovering properly from her organic trouble and they decided to call a Dr. Norris of Los Angeles and to ask his advice concerning her progress. Dr. Norris advised her to contact Dr. Cornish of Albuquerque, which she did. Subsequently, about November 1, 1950, the Coes decided to go to Los Angeles for further consultation with Dr. Norris. They discussed the matter with Dr. Behney, who advised them it was unnecessary as her recovery was satisfactory, nevertheless, he agreed, and on November 2, 1950, Dr. Behney gave her an additional 30 morphine tablets and 36 sleeping pills to tide her over until she could contact Dr. Norris. This prescription is not shown on the above chart. She left Albuquerque November 3, 1950 by plane and was admitted to the Good Samaritan Hospital the following day. She then complained of great pain, requiring an unusual amount of morphine. Dr. Norris performed an exploratory operation on November 13 and found her to be suffering from adhesions and intestinal obstructions and apparently experiencing pain. Following the operation, her tolerance to pain was so low as to arouse Dr. Norris's suspicion as to her use of narcotics. It was found she had been using morphine about every three hours, day and night, but having utmost confidence in Dr. Norris, Mrs. Coe confided in him the amount of morphine she had taken and at his demand agreed to undertake the withdrawal, which followed. The operation performed by him was successful and she was discharged from the hospital December 7, 1950. The agonies of her withdrawal were related to the jury by Dr. Norris and Mrs. Coe. This evidence warrants an inference of addiction due to the lack of care on the part of appellant. Instead of attempting to discover the cause of her suffering and relieving it, Dr. Behney continually gave her morphine to relieve her pain and desires, with the result, as the jury found, she became an addict.
The allowance of punitive damages is assigned as error. The rule in this regard is found at 41 Am.Jur. (Physicians & Surgeons) Sec. 134, as follows:
'* * * The law may, however, permit an award of punitive damages in such cases where the negligence is wanton or gross, as where the physician is shown to have been actuated by bad motives or intent to injure the patient, or where the treatment was given or the operation performed with utter indifference as to the effect upon the patient. * * *'
Also see 70 C.J.S., Physicians and Surgeons, Sec. 67, which reads:
'* * * the weight of authority is to the effect that such damages may also be recovered where a physician has been guilty of gross negligence amounting to reckless indifference in treating a patient. * * *'
The Coes themselves were...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Morrison v. MacNamara
...plaintiff's acquiescence in that risk was voluntary. See King v. Solomon, 323 Mass. 326, 81 N.E.2d 838 (1948); Los Alamos Medical Center v. Coe, 58 N.M. 686, 275 P.2d 175 (1954). It follows that the mere fact that the plaintiff requested a particular treatment is not sufficient to satisfy t......
-
Siebert v. Okun
...medical negligence as a cause of action does not appear in the state appellate record until 1954. Id. ; Los Alamos Med. Ctr., Inc. v. Coe , 1954-NMSC-090, 58 N.M. 686, 275 P.2d 175. Broadening the scope of our review of state case law to include causes of action that are similar to medical ......
-
Purtill v. Hess
...infants); Wentling v. Jenny (1980), 206 Neb. 335, 293 N.W.2d 76 (treatment and diagnosis of breast cancer); Los Alamos Medical Center, Inc. v. Coe (1954), 58 N.M. 686, 275 P.2d 175 (administration of morphine); Rucker v. High Point Memorial Hospital, Inc. (1974), 285 N.C. 519, 206 S.E.2d 19......
-
Picher v. Roman Catholic Bishop of Portland
...of charitable immunity. Finally, New Mexico has not addressed the existence of charitable immunity. See, e.g., Los Alamos Med. Ctr. v. Coe, 58 N.M. 686, 275 P.2d 175, 181 (1954) (reserving the issue of the existence of charitable 2. The Legislature Did Not Intend to Expand the Scope of Char......