Faile v. Bycura, 1247
| Decision Date | 19 October 1988 |
| Docket Number | No. 1247,1247 |
| Citation | 374 S.E.2d 687,297 S.C. 58 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Ethel Archie FAILE, Appellant, v. Dr. Blair M. BYCURA, Respondent. . Heard |
S. Jackson Kimball, and John Martin Foster, Rock Hill, for appellant.
John L. Choate and Barbara Howe McArthur, of Nelson, Mullins, Riley & Scarborough, Columbia, for respondent.
This is a medical malpractice case. Ethel Faile sued Dr. Blair Bycura, a podiatrist, claiming the surgical procedure he performed on her feet was inappropriate treatment for heel spurs. The jury returned a verdict for Bycura. Faile appeals. We affirm.
Faile consulted Bycura in 1983 on referral from another podiatrist. This podiatrist had treated her heel pain with cortisone injections for several years. X-rays taken by Bycura revealed heel spurs in both feet. Faile claims she was only bothered with pain in the right foot and had no problem with the left. Bycura recommended and performed tenotomies and capsulotomies on the second, third, fourth, and fifth toes of both feet. Faile claims the procedures gave her no relief for her heel pain and asserted she now has additional pain in the balls of her feet and her toes. She sued Bycura for negligence alleging he undertook an improper and inappropriate course of treatment for her heel pain. Bycura denied the allegations of negligence and pled the affirmative defenses of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence. He alleged Faile was advised of various alternative methods of treatment and of potential risks including the probabilities of success of the procedures. He claims she voluntarily assumed the risk of the operative procedure. He also alleged she was contributorily negligent in failing to follow his instructions and in failing to wear a corrective device he prescribed.
Faile excepts to (1) the refusal of the trial judge to strike the defenses of assumption of the risk and contributory negligence, (2) the admission of evidence of other cases where the procedure was performed successfully, and (3) the refusal of the trial judge to give a requested jury instruction. She seeks a new trial.
Faile alleged tenotomies and capsulotomies were inappropriate procedures for treatment of heel spurs. She did not allege the procedures were negligently performed. Bycura asserted the procedures were appropriate treatment methods. Both sides presented expert testimony as to the appropriateness of the procedures in support of their respective positions.
In a prior appellate decision, the Supreme Court reversed a jury award for Faile because the trial court did not submit the defense of assumption of the risk to the jury. Faile v. Bycura, 289 S.C. 398, 346 S.E.2d 528 (1986). The Court noted Faile had signed consent forms and testified one of Bycura's employees discussed the risks with her. Id. at 399, 346 S.E.2d at 529. This record also contains consent forms signed by Faile and testimony about her discussions with employees. The forms specifically designate alternative methods of treatment. They indicate the surgery might not work and she would later need to have surgery on the heel for removal of the spur. Additional forms signed by Faile designate possible complications.
Faile argues assumption of the risk is not an appropriate defense when the issue is the propriety of a particular method of treatment. The Supreme Court did not agree with this position in the first Faile opinion. The propriety of the procedure was contested then and now. The jury could find under the evidence the surgical procedure was an appropriate method of treatment. In that case, assumption of the risk is an issue.
Faile further argues assumption of the risk was improperly submitted to the jury because there was no expert testimony presented by Bycura establishing the elements of informed consent. Bycura's records were introduced at trial. Faile testified about her discussions with Bycura and his employees regarding the procedure. She admitted executing consent forms but testified she did not understand them. Neither Bycura nor his employees testified.
Faile confuses the concepts of informed consent and assumption of the risk. A plaintiff may allege a medical practitioner failed to inform her of the consequences of a procedure and thereby failed to obtain an informed consent. This is a theory of liability. In such a situation, a plaintiff must normally establish a breach of the duty to disclose by expert testimony. Hook v. Rothstein, 281 S.C. 541, 316 S.E.2d 690 (Ct.App.1984) writ denied, 283 S.C. 64, 320 S.E.2d 35 (1984); Botehlo v. Bycura, 282 S.C. 578, 320 S.E.2d 59 (Ct.App.1984) ().
Faile's action did not allege breach of the doctrine of informed consent. Her theory was use of an improper medical procedure. In other words, Faile alleged the surgical procedure could not medically relieve her problem no matter how informed she was about the procedure and its risks or complications. The effectiveness of the procedure was disputed by Bycura. Faile has not cited a complication or risk she now claims to have which was not disclosed to her. We find no merit to Faile's argument on assumption of the risk.
Faile additionally excepts to the submission of contributory negligence to the jury. Bycura asserted she did not follow his instructions and did not wear a prescribed post-operative orthotic device. Faile testified Bycura gave her orthotic devices for her shoes after the operation but she threw them away after trying to wear them for about a month. She did not tell Bycura about her problem with the orthotics. Faile's expert witness testified he recommended the use of orthotics for biomedically induced heel spurs such as Faile's. A subsequent treating physician also testified he recommended the use of orthotic devices. Further, an expert witness for Bycura testified the use of orthotic devices after surgery is appropriate and Faile's condition called for the devices. Under this evidence, it was appropriate for the trial court to submit the issue of contributory negligence to the jury for its consideration.
As a second issue, Faile excepts to the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jensen v. Archbishop Bergan Mercy Hosp.
...physician or see a surgeon after her physician had diagnosed an apparently malignant tumor in the patient's breast); Faile v. Bycura, 297 S.C. 58, 374 S.E.2d 687 (1988) (patient refused to wear a medically prescribed postoperative orthotic device after surgery on patient's foot); Welker v. ......
-
Spar v. Cha
...or on the plaintiff's choice to voluntarily encounter a risk already created by the defendant's negligence. See Faile v. Bycura, 297 S.C. 58, 374 S.E.2d 687, 688 (Ct.App.1988) the distinction between the two doctrines). C. Incurred Risk as a Defense to Negligence in Diagnosis or Treatment S......
-
Gunther v. Charlotte Baseball, Inc.
...slipped and fell on snow and ice on ground on the way to annual meeting of condominium association members); Faile v. Bycura, 297 S.C. 58, 374 S.E.2d 687 (Ct.App.1988) (plaintiff voluntarily submitted to medical procedure to remove heel spurs); Senn v. Sun Printing Co., 295 S.C. 169, 367 S.......