Baltzell v. Baptist Medical Center
| Decision Date | 14 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. WD,WD |
| Citation | 718 S.W.2d 140 |
| Parties | Nita R. BALTZELL, Appellant, v. BAPTIST MEDICAL CENTER, William C. Van Buskirk, Eugene C. Capps, Respondents. 37486. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Elwyn L. Cady, Jr., Independence, for appellant.
James F. Stigall, Kuraner & Schwelger, Kansas City, for respondents.
Before LOWENSTEIN, P.J., and MANFORD and GAITAN, JJ.
The appellant Nita Baltzell filed this suit against the respondents, a hospital and two physicians for damages for gaining her consent to surgery without having disclosed to her the inherent risks involved. Her petition alleges she was not told of complications that could, and did develop from surgery upon her and thus rendered her consent "nugatory" resulting in her case for "surgical battery." The trial court, at the end of plaintiff's case, directed a verdict in favor of the three defendants.
Baltzell had noticed a lump in her breast. Having had a personal history of cysts and her mother having died of cancer, she called her longtime physician, the defendant Van Buskirk. He advised immediate removal and examination of the lump. The surgery was done a few days later at the defendant Baptist Hospital. The anesthetic was actually administered by an associate of the defendant, Dr. Capps. Baltzell gave her consent to the Hospital to initiate further surgery if the test results warranted.
Following the removal of the lump Baltzell developed a staph infection in the area of the incision. This suit followed with the plaintiff's testimony she was not warned by any of the defendants that infection was a possible complication of surgery, and if she had known of this possibility she would have sought alternative treatment. Baltzell introduced the following deposition testimony of an expert witness, Dr. Payne:
Q. So, in the practice of your profession the, it's an ordinary requirement that you discuss with the patient prior to surgery about wound infection as a possible complication; is it not?
A. That's right.
Q. And you gain a consent of the ordinary standard of care to that patient, understanding that there is a possible complication of wound infection?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that's a standard not just used by you but it's a national standard in this county, is it not, Doctor, to you knowledge?
A. To the best of my knowledge, yes.
Dr. Payne also said there is a five to ten percent chance of infection, including a stitch abscess following surgery.
The scope of review for a directed verdict at the close of plaintiff's case is that all evidence and reasonable inferences from that evidence must be viewed in a light most favorable to the plaintiff in order to determine if a submissible case has been made against each defendant on the theory presented in the petition. Rustici v. Weidemeyer, 673 S.W.2d 762, 765 (Mo. banc 1984); Lewis v. Envirotech Corp., 674 S.W.2d 105, 110-11 (Mo.App.1984). The judgment is affirmed in part and reversed in part.
The trial court determined the hospital had no duty to inform of the risks of infection in this surgical battery case. Baltzell came to the hospital the morning before surgery. A nurse gave her a consent form to the operation to remove the lump and total removal of the breast if necessary. The form also stated there were risks connected with such a procedure. Baltzell had been admitted as Van Buskirk's patient and, on these facts, Roberson v. Menorah Medical Center, 588 S.W.2d 134 (Mo.App.1979) controls. There is no evidence in the record giving rise to a duty on the part of the hospital to inform the patient of risks as to this surgical procedure. Here, as in Roberson, the plaintiff was the patient of the doctor who recommended and discussed with her the operation. Similarly, there was no suggestion of the doctor being an agent of the hospital so the directed verdict for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Giese v. Stice
... ... damages against a health care provider under the Nebraska Hospital-Medical Liability Act must be commenced within 2 years next after the alleged act ... Iowa Methodist Medical Center, 408 N.W.2d 355, 362 (Iowa 1987) (no duty on part of hospital "to inform a ... that lie at the heart of the doctor-patient relationship"); Baltzell v. Baptist Medical Center, 718 S.W.2d 140 (Mo.App.1986) (hospital had no ... ...
-
Baltzell v. Van Buskirk
...for battery and proffered Instruction A was correctly refused. Appellant suggests that the prior opinion by this court, Baltzell v. Baptist Medical Center, supra, established the law of the case when it described appellant's claim as one for surgical battery, and that her Instruction A was ......
- State v. Johnson, WD