Canterbury v. Spence

Decision Date19 May 1972
Docket NumberNo. 22099.,22099.
PartiesJerry W. CANTERBURY, Appellant, v. William Thornton SPENCE and the Washington Hospital Center, a body corporate, Appellees.
CourtU.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit




Mr. Earl H. Davis, Washington, D. C., for appellant.

Mr. Walter J. Murphy, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellee Spence.

Mr. John L. Laskey, Washington, D. C., for appellee Washington Hospital Center.

Before WRIGHT, LEVENTHAL and ROBINSON, Circuit Judges.


This appeal is from a judgment entered in the District Court on verdicts directed for the two appellees at the conclusion of plaintiff-appellant Canterbury's case in chief. His action sought damages for personal injuries allegedly sustained as a result of an operation negligently performed by appellee Spence, a negligent failure by Dr. Spence to disclose a risk of serious disability inherent in the operation, and negligent post-operative care by appellee Washington Hospital Center. On close examination of the record, we find evidence which required submission of these issues to the jury. We accordingly reverse the judgment as to each appellee and remand the case to the District Court for a new trial.


The record we review tells a depressing tale. A youth troubled only by back pain submitted to an operation without being informed of a risk of paralysis incidental thereto. A day after the operation he fell from his hospital bed after having been left without assistance while voiding. A few hours after the fall, the lower half of his body was paralyzed, and he had to be operated on again. Despite extensive medical care, he has never been what he was before. Instead of the back pain, even years later, he hobbled about on crutches, a victim of paralysis of the bowels and urinary incontinence. In a very real sense this lawsuit is an understandable search for reasons.

At the time of the events which gave rise to this litigation, appellant was nineteen years of age, a clerk-typist employed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation. In December, 1958, he began to experience severe pain between his shoulder blades.1 He consulted two general practitioners, but the medications they prescribed failed to eliminate the pain. Thereafter, appellant secured an appointment with Dr. Spence, who is a neurosurgeon.

Dr. Spence examined appellant in his office at some length but found nothing amiss. On Dr. Spence's advice appellant was x-rayed, but the films did not identify any abormality. Dr. Spence then recommended that appellant undergo a myelogram—a procedure in which dye is injected into the spinal column and traced to find evidence of disease or other disorder—at the Washington Hospital Center.

Appellant entered the hospital on February 4, 1959.2 The myelogram revealed a "filling defect" in the region of the fourth thoracic vertebra. Since a myelogram often does no more than pinpoint the location of an aberration, surgery may be necessary to discover the cause. Dr. Spence told appellant that he would have to undergo a laminectomy—the excision of the posterior arch of the vertebra—to correct what he suspected was a ruptured disc. Appellant did not raise any objection to the proposed operation nor did he probe into its exact nature.

Appellant explained to Dr. Spence that his mother was a widow of slender financial means living in Cyclone, West Virginia, and that she could be reached through a neighbor's telephone. Appellant called his mother the day after the myelogram was performed and, failing to contact her, left Dr. Spence's telephone number with the neighbor. When Mrs. Canterbury returned the call, Dr. Spence told her that the surgery was occasioned by a suspected ruptured disc. Mrs. Canterbury then asked if the recommended operation was serious and Dr. Spence replied "not anymore than any other operation." He added that he knew Mrs. Canterbury was not well off and that her presence in Washington would not be necessary. The testimony is contradictory as to whether during the course of the conversation Mrs. Canterbury expressed her consent to the operation. Appellant himself apparently did not converse again with Dr. Spence prior to the operation.

Dr. Spence performed the laminectomy on February 113 at the Washington Hospital Center. Mrs. Canterbury traveled to Washington, arriving on that date but after the operation was over, and signed a consent form at the hospital. The laminectomy revealed several anomalies: a spinal cord that was swollen and unable to pulsate, an accumulation of large tortuous and dilated veins, and a complete absence of epidural fat which normally surrounds the spine. A thin hypodermic needle was inserted into the spinal cord to aspirate any cysts which might have been present, but no fluid emerged. In suturing the wound, Dr. Spence attempted to relieve the pressure on the spinal cord by enlarging the dura —the outer protective wall of the spinal cord—at the area of swelling.

For approximately the first day after the operation appellant recuperated normally, but then suffered a fall and an almost immediate setback. Since there is some conflict as to precisely when or why appellant fell,4 we reconstruct the events from the evidence most favorable to him.5 Dr. Spence left orders that appellant was to remain in bed during the process of voiding. These orders were changed to direct that voiding be done out of bed, and the jury could find that the change was made by hospital personnel. Just prior to the fall, appellant summoned a nurse and was given a receptacle for use in voiding, but was then left unattended. Appellant testified that during the course of the endeavor he slipped off the side of the bed, and that there was no one to assist him, or side rail to prevent the fall.

Several hours later, appellant began to complain that he could not move his legs and that he was having trouble breathing; paralysis seems to have been virtually total from the waist down. Dr. Spence was notified on the night of February 12, and he rushed to the hospital. Mrs. Canterbury signed another consent form and appellant was again taken into the operating room. The surgical wound was reopened and Dr. Spense created a gusset to allow the spinal cord greater room in which to pulsate.

Appellant's control over his muscles improved somewhat after the second operation but he was unable to void properly. As a result of this condition, he came under the care of a urologist while still in the hospital. In April, following a cystoscopic examination, appellant was operated on for removal of bladder stones, and in May was released from the hospital. He reentered the hospital the following August for a 10-day period, apparently because of his urologic problems. For several years after his discharge he was under the care of several specialists, and at all times was under the care of a urologist. At the time of the trial in April, 1968, appellant required crutches to walk, still suffered from urinal incontinence and paralysis of the bowels, and wore a penile clamp.

In November, 1959 on Dr. Spence's recommendation, appellant was transferred by the F.B.I. to Miami where he could get more swimming and exercise. Appellant worked three years for the F.B.I. in Miami, Los Angeles and Houston, resigning finally in June, 1962. From then until the time of the trial, he held a number of jobs, but had constant trouble finding work because he needed to remain seated and close to a bathroom. The damages appellant claims include extensive pain and suffering, medical expenses, and loss of earnings.


Appellant filed suit in the District Court on March 7, 1963, four years after the laminectomy and approximately two years after he attained his majority. The complaint stated several causes of action against each defendant. Against Dr. Spence it alleged, among other things, negligence in the performance of the laminectomy and failure to inform him beforehand of the risk involved. Against the hospital the complaint charged negligent post-operative care in permitting appellant to remain unattended after the laminectomy, in failing to provide a nurse or orderly to assist him at the time of his fall, and in failing to maintain a side rail on his bed. The answers denied the allegations of negligence and defended on the ground that the suit was barred by the statute of limitations.

Pretrial discovery—including depositions by appellant, his mother and Dr. Spence—continuances and other delays consumed five years. At trial, disposition of the threshold question whether the statute of limitations had run was held in abeyance until the relevant facts developed. Appellant introduced no evidence to show medical and hospital practices, if any, customarily pursued in regard to the critical aspects of the case, and only Dr. Spence, called as an adverse witness, testified on the issue of causality. Dr. Spence described the surgical procedures he utilized in the two operations and expressed his opinion that appellant's disabilities stemmed from his pre-operative condition as symptomized by the swollen, non-pulsating spinal cord. He stated, however, that neither he nor any of the other physicians with whom he consulted was certain as to what that condition was, and he admitted that trauma can be a cause of paralysis. Dr. Spence further testified that even without trauma paralysis can be anticipated "somewhere in the nature of one percent" of the laminectomies performed, a risk he termed "a very slight possibility." He felt that communication of that risk to the patient is not good medical practice because it might deter patients from undergoing needed surgery and might produce adverse psychological reactions which could preclude the success of the operation.

At the close of appellant's...

To continue reading

Request your trial
383 cases
  • Wood v. Rutherford
    • United States
    • Appellate Court of Connecticut
    • January 8, 2019
    ...who performs surgery without consent." Chouinard v. Marjani , 21 Conn. App. 572, 579, 575 A.2d 238 (1990) ; see also Canterbury v. Spence , 464 F.2d 772, 783 (D.C. Cir.) ("[i]t is the settled rule that therapy not authorized by the patient may amount to ... a common law battery"), cert. den......
  • Klaassen v. Trs. of Ind. Univ.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of Indiana
    • July 18, 2021
    ...consent "entails an opportunity to evaluate knowledgeably the options available and the risks attendant upon each." Canterbury v. Spence , 464 F.2d 772, 780 (D.C. Cir. 1972). The students acknowledge that, for medical products under an EUA like the three COVID-19 vaccines, HHS must establis......
  • Margaret v. Treen
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of Louisiana
    • June 29, 1984
    ...a physician to dispense with the requirement of patient consent under a wider variety of circumstances. See, e.g., Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 778-779 (D.D.C. 1972), cert. denied 409 U.S. 1004, 93 S.Ct. 500, 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972); Babin v. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co., 385......
  • Hook v. Rothstein
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of South Carolina
    • April 16, 1984
    ...229, 104 Cal.Rptr. 505, 502 P.2d 1 (1972); Logan v. Greenwich Hospital Ass'n, 191 Conn. 282, 465 A.2d 294 (1983); Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C.Cir.1972), cert. denied, 409 U.S. 1064, 93 S.Ct. 560, 34 L.Ed.2d 518 (1972); Revord v. Russell, 401 N.E.2d 763 (Ind.App.1980); Percle v. ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
35 books & journal articles
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Vol. 85 No. 1, March 2022
    • March 22, 2022
    ...or hazards that could have influenced a reasonable person in making a decision to give or withhold consent"). (189) Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. Cir. (190) Id, at 782 n.27 (citing Stinnett v. Price, 446 S.W.2d 893, 894-95 (Tex. Civ. App. 1969)). (191) Id. at 786-87; see also Cob......
  • When human experimentation is criminal.
    • United States
    • Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Vol. 99 No. 1, January 2009
    • January 1, 2009
    ...Many courts utilize a negligence standard in cases involving a failure to obtain informed consent. See, e.g., Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772 (D.C. 1972); Cobbs, 502 P.2d 1, 7-8; Natanson v. Kline, 350 P.2d 1093 (Kan. 1960); Wilkinson v. Vesey, 295 A.2d 676 (R.I. 1972). A minority of jur......
  • Informed consent: from the ambivalence of Arato to the thunder of Thor.
    • United States
    • Issues in Law & Medicine Vol. 10 No. 3, December 1994
    • December 22, 1994
    ...person situated as was the patient). Possibly the first in this line of cases is the influential decision of Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 784, 787 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (rejecting the "professional" standard and opting for a patient-based standard for measuring the physician's disclosure ......
  • Toward a Theory of Medical Malpractice
    • United States
    • Iowa Law Review No. 97-4, May 2012
    • May 1, 2012
    ...v. Bender, 596 F.3d 1244, 1252–60 (10th Cir. 2010) (summarizing and applying extant rules of informed consent); Canterbury v. Spence, 464 F.2d 772, 780 (D.C. Cir. 1972) (setting up influential precedent for informed-consent requirements); Albany Urology Clinic, P.C. v. Cleveland, 528 S.E.2d......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

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