Bernath v. Le Fever

Citation189 A. 342,325 Pa. 43
PartiesBERNATH v. LE FEVER.
Decision Date11 January 1937
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
189 A. 342
325 Pa. 43

BERNATH
v.
LE FEVER.

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania.

Jan. 11, 1937.


Appeal No. 319, January term, 1936, from judgment of Court of Common Pleas No. 3, Philadelphia County, June term, 1932, No. 10851; Thomas D. Finletter, President Judge.

Action in trespass by Tillie Bernath against C. W. Le Fever for injuries to and loss of eye. From an adverse judgment, the plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Argued before KEPHART, C. J., and SCHAFFER, MAXEY, DREW, LINN, STERN, and BARNES, JJ.

Louis Sherr, of Philadelphia, for appellant.

Charles E. Kenworthey and Evans, Bayard & Frick, all of Philadelphia, for appellee.

STERN, Justice.

Plaintiff was a victim of malignant destructive myopia. Notwithstanding long-continued treatments, her condition grew progressively worse, and she was threatened, as to her right eye at least, with practical blindness. Defendant, who had been her oculist for several years, advised an operation on the right eye, and, her consent being given, he operated on January 9, 1930. The procedure, according to defendant, consisted in "what we call needling, breaking the capsule which holds the lens, breaking into the capsule and breaking up the lens to some extent so that the water in the anterior chamber is absorbed

189 A. 343

into the lens, causes the lens to soften and absorb and disappear."

The vision in the right eye was temporarily improved, and a similar operation on the left eye was performed on May 11 1930. The right eye, however, began to grow worse again; from the testimony it would appear that after a lens' has been removed the posterior capsule frequently becomes opaque, making it necessary to needle it also. Accordingly, defendant performed this second operation on the right eye on May 9, 1931. Unfortunately an inflammation developed which made necessary still another operation, performed on May 11, 1931. Finally, in July, 1931, the right eye had to be entirely removed.

The present action is in trespass to recover damages for the injuries to the eye and its ultimate loss. Plaintiff does not claim that either the original or any subsequent operation was ill-advised or was negligently performed; on the contrary, she expressly admits that "defendant is an opthalmologist, whose skill, learning and reputation is of the highest," and that the operation of January 9, 1930, was "the only method known to medical science for the improvement of the serious condition which plaintiff had, and the unfortunate results of the...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT