Becker v. Floersch
Decision Date | 08 March 1941 |
Docket Number | 35062. |
Citation | 153 Kan. 374,110 P.2d 752 |
Parties | BECKER v. FLOERSCH. |
Court | Kansas Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied April 18, 1941.
Syllabus by the Court.
An action for malpractice is barred by two-year limitation statute which begins to run from the time that the malpractice was committed. Gen.St.1935, 60-306, subd. 3.
The mere fact that physician continued to treat patient after alleged malpractice occurred, would not toll two-year limitation statute. Gen.St.1935, 60-306, subd. 3.
Rule followed that an action for malpractice is barred in two years from the time such wrongdoing was committed; and the statutory time within which to bring the action was not extended beyond two years merely because plaintiff remained for a time under the professional care of defendant after the alleged malpractice was committed.
Appeal from District Court, Shawnee County, Division No. 2; Paul H Heinz, Judge.
Action by Ruth L. Becker against Dr. M. A. Floersch to recover damages for alleged malpractice. From a judgment sustaining a demurrer to the petition, the plaintiff appeals.
Judgment affirmed.
Keene Saxon, of Topeka, for appellant.
J. D M. Hamilton, Barton E. Griffith, and Peter F. Caldwell, all of Topeka, for appellee.
This is an appeal from a judgment sustaining a demurrer to a petition in which plaintiff sought a recovery of damages for malpractice.
The trial court's ruling was based on the two-years' limitation allowed by statute within which an action of that character, sounding in tort, can be maintained. G.S. 1935 60-306, 3rd clause.
In her petition which was filed on November 16, 1939, plaintiff alleged that on January 12, 1935, she was suffering from a tumorous growth in her abdomen and was advised to consult the defendant who had been highly recommended as a physician and surgeon and as "one who could correctly advise her as to whether or not she needed an operation." Accordingly she and her husband called at defendant's office and made a full disclosure of her physical ailment and asked his advice and that defendant said he was an X-ray specialist and that he could guarantee to cure the tumorous growth that ailed her in ten X-ray treatments at $10 each, or for $75 in all. Plaintiff alleged that she paid the required amount in installments; and on January 12, 1935, she began taking X-ray treatments in defendant's office and under his direction and so continued until February 18, 1936, by which time she had taken about 90 such treatments; and that thereafter defendant began and continued to give her other types of treatment until May 1939, at which time she discharged him from further professional services.
Plaintiff also alleged that on February 18, 1936, and "for some three months thereafter" plaintiff took iodine internally as recommended by defendant; that at his special direction and request, between March 6 and May 12, 1936, she had 19 teeth extracted; that about February, 1936, plaintiff began to suffer from a new ailment, which defendant described as rheumatism and treated her therefor; that in February 1935, plaintiff ceased to menstruate and became sterile, "which this plaintiff has learned since arose from and was caused by the X-ray treatments heretofore mentioned."
Plaintiff also alleged defendant continued to treat the plaintiff until May, 1939, and that ever since she first consulted defendant in January, 1935, until she discharged defendant in 1939, she suffered continuously. Without a specific allegation that such suffering was the result of defendant's malpractice, she alleged:
Plaintiff's petition continued:
Recapitulating the grounds of her cause of action, plaintiff alleged that defendant was guilty of negligence in giving her 90 X-ray treatments instead of 10 as he "had promised, advised and agreed," and that defendant:
"Was guilty of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Bonin v. Vannaman
...of a medical malpractice action in at least three different cases and has refused to recognize the doctrine in each case. Becker v. Floersch, 153 Kan. 374, Syl., 110 P.2d 752 (1941); Hill v. Hays, 193 Kan. 453, Syl. p 3, 395 P.2d 298 (1964); Hecht v. First National Bank & Trust Co., 208 Kan......
-
P.W.P. v. L.S.
...trial court's rejection of the continuous treatment doctrine, noting that the doctrine had specifically been rejected in Becker v. Floersch, 153 Kan. 374, 110 P.2d 752, Syl., 153 Kan. 374, 110 P.2d 752 (1941); Hill v. Hays, 193 Kan. 453, Syl. p 3, 395 P.2d 298 (1964); and Hecht, 208 Kan. 84......
-
Thatcher v. De Tar
... ... Mass. 578, 165 N.E. 653; Hahn v. Claybrook, 100 A ... 83, L. R. A. 1917C, 1169; Ogg v. Robb, 162 N.W. 217, ... L. R. A. 1918C, 982; Becker v. Floersch, 153 Kan ... 374, 110 P.2d 752; Allison v. Mo. P. & L. Co., 59 ... S.W.2d 771. (2) The appellant's failure to discover the ... ...
-
McCoy v. Wesley Hospital and Nurse Training School
...of a hospital should be no different. On this point, however, the Kansas malpractice decisions are to the contrary. Becker v. Floersch, 153 Kan. 374, 110 P.2d 752; and Coulter v. Sharp, 145 Kan. 28, 64 P.2d In Blackburn v. Security Benefit Ass'n, 149 Kan. 89, 86 P.2d 536, the plaintiff cont......