Ambrosi v. Monks
Decision Date | 14 December 1951 |
Docket Number | No. 1106.,1106. |
Citation | 85 A.2d 188 |
Parties | AMBROSI v. MONKS. |
Court | D.C. Court of Appeals |
Sol M. Alpher, Washington, D. C., Louis E. Spiegler, Washington, D. C., on the brief, for appellant.
J. Harry Welch, Washington, D. C., H. Mason Welch and John R. Daily, Washington, D. C., on the brief, for appellee.
Before CAYTON, Chief Judge, and HOOD and QUINN, Associate Judges.
Mrs. Ambrosi, who is appellant here, sued Dr. Monks, a dental surgeon, for malpractice. Her testimony showed that she was referred by her dentist, Dr. Norton, to Dr. Monks for the extraction of a lower molar. Dr. Monks took an X-ray of the tooth, administered a local anesthetic, and extracted the tooth. Mrs. Ambrosi testified that immediately with the pull she felt a terrible blow or jerk followed by agonizing pain which caused her to scream. Dr. Monks protested, telling her, "it can't hurt you." She was told to return the following day. The pain continued and she was unable to eat any solid food. When she returned the following day she was still in pain. Dr. Monks removed a wad of cotton he had left in her mouth, sprayed her mouth and told her to see her own dentist as soon as possible. She saw Dr. Norton two days later. Dr. Norton testified that when he saw her she was complaining of pain and a loose tooth, that the tooth was so sore he could not examine it very well, that he put something on the opposite side of the mouth to keep her from closing her jaws and hitting the sore tooth. A day or two later Dr. Norton took an X-ray of the sore tooth, which was adjacent to the one which had been extracted. The X-ray disclosed that the sore tooth had been completely separated from the root and was attached only to the gum. Dr. Norton then removed the loose tooth leaving the root in the gum. Examination revealed that it was a dead tooth with a large silver filling. Dr. Monks, called as a witness for Mrs. Ambrosi, admitted that before the extraction he took an X-ray of the tooth to be extracted and the adjacent tooth and that the X-ray showed no fracture of the adjacent tooth.
The theory of Mrs. Ambrosi's claim was that in the course of the extraction Dr. Monks through negligence fractured the adjacent tooth. At the close of her evidence the trial court directed a verdict for Dr. Monks.1 The correctness of that ruling is challenged on this appeal.
To sustain her claim it was necessary for Mrs. Ambrosi to offer evidence from which the jury could find (1) that some act of Dr. Monks caused the fracture of the tooth, and (2) that such act was a negligent one.
With respect to the cause of the injury we think there was sufficient evidence for the jury to find that the injury was caused by some act of Dr. Monks in extracting the adjacent tooth. He conceded that no fracture showed up in the X-ray made prior to the extraction. From that time until about a week later when Dr. Norton's X-ray disclosed the fracture, Mrs. Ambrosi had eaten no solid food and had done nothing likely to result in a fracture of the tooth. Because of its soreness she had been particularly careful of it. And because of such soreness Dr. Norton's first examination of it was very superficial. His only treatment of her was to prevent the sore tooth from coming into contact with anything else. Nothing in his treatment would give rise to a probability that his treatment caused the fracture. The extreme pain suffered by Mrs. Ambrosi at the time of the extraction (when Dr. Monks said she should feel no pain), which continued until the broken tooth was discovered and removed by Dr. Norton, warrants an inference that the fracture occurred while the adjacent tooth was being extracted. "The law is not so exacting that it requires proof of negligence or causation by testimony so clear that it excludes every other speculative theory." Christie v. Callahan, 75 U.S. App.D.C. 133, 148, 124 F.2d 825, 840.
The question whether the act of Dr. Monks, whatever it was, which caused the fracture was a negligent act is a more difficult one. There was no expert testimony. It is the law here, and generally elsewhere, that in malpractice cases the question of "the merits of a diagnosis and scientific treatment" cannot be determined by a jury without the aid of expert testimony. Rodgers v. Lawson, 83 U.S.App. D.C. 281, 285, 170 F.2d 157, 160, 161. This rule is especially applicable in highly specialized subjects such as cancer, "as to which laymen have no knowledge and as to which both court and jury must depend on expert evidence." Kasmer v. Sternal, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 50, 52, 165 F.2d 624, 626.
However, there are exceptions to the rule that expert testimony is necessary in malpractice cases. In Christie v. Callahan, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 133, 136, 124 F.2d 825, 828, it was said: In Sweeney v. Erving, 35 App.D.C. 57, 62, 43 L.R.A.,N.S., 734, affirmed, 228 U.S. 233, 33 S.Ct. 416, 57 L. Ed. 815, it was said: "There are...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jones v. Stess
...Maternity Hospital, 63 N.J.Super. 106, 115, 164 A.2d 75 (App.Div.1960); Daly v. Lininger, 87 Colo. 401, 288 P. 633 (Sup.Ct.1930); Ambrosi v. Monks, 85 A.2d 188 (D.C.Mun.Ct. of App.1951); Bessinger v. DeLoach, 230 S.C. 1, 94 S.E.2d 3 (Sup.Ct.1956); Gray v. Weinstein, 227 N.C. 463, 42 S.E.2d ......
-
Bessinger v. De Loach, 17188
...may reasonably and naturally infer the ultimate fact required to be established. [Citing other Washington cases.]' Ambrosi v. Monks, D.C.Mun.App., 1951, 85 A.2d 188, 189: 'There are exceptions to the rule that expert testimony is necessary in malpractice Wheaton v. Rubin, 1948, 162 Pa.Super......
-
Brown v. Keaveny
...in his own or similar localities." Rodgers v. Lawson, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 281, 282, 170 F.2d 157, 158 (1948). Compare Ambrosi v. Monks, D.C.Mun.App., 85 A.2d 188 (1951). Certainly he is in a better position to make this explanation than the patient who was alone and under a general anesthetic w......
-
Caldwell v. Knight, 35811
...is for the jury, as in other cases of negligence, whenever upon the evidence the minds of reasonable men might differ.' In Ambrosi v. Monks, D.C.Mnn.App., 85 A.2d 188, it was held that the plaintiff's testimony established that the injury to her tooth occurred at the time the defendant succ......