Gilbert v. Campbell
| Decision Date | 04 November 1983 |
| Citation | 440 So.2d 1048 |
| Parties | William P. GILBERT v. Dr. John H. CAMPBELL. 82-677. |
| Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Stephen D. Heninger of Hare, Wynn, Newell & Newton, Birmingham, for appellant.
Curtis Wright of Dortch, Wright & Russell, Gadsden, for appellee.
William Gilbert filed this medical malpractice action against Dr. John Campbell. Gilbert claims that Dr. Campbell negligently left a portion of a Penrose drain in his abdomen. At trial, after the close of the defendant's case, the trial court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant physician on the ground that there was no evidence of negligence. Gilbert appeals. We affirm.
In December 1979, Gilbert underwent an anterior resection of the colon to remove a tumor. Dr. Campbell performed the operation. During the operation, the colon had to be lifted and moved out of the way. Dr. Campbell testified that he occasionally utilized a Penrose drain to do this, although he could not recall whether one was used during Gilbert's operation. He stated that before closing the site of the operation he checked and did not see any pieces of Penrose drain or other foreign matter.
Subsequently, in May and June of 1980, Gilbert was readmitted to the hospital for treatment of infections in the same area of the abdomen. During both stays Penrose drains were inserted through his rectum to drain infected material from a pelvic abcess. The first drain came out on its own. The second one was removed by the routine method, i.e., pulling it out through the rectum. Throughout this time Gilbert had infections in his abdomen, and eventually, a fistula, or tunnel between the abcess and the exterior left buttock, developed. In April 1981, he was referred to Dr. Halpern, who performed an operation to close off the fistula from the inside. Dr. Halpern found, in the tract of the fistula, among other things, a piece of Penrose drain approximately two inches in length. This was removed.
Gilbert urges us to apply the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to this case. He argues that he has established a prima facie case of negligence against Dr. Campbell under the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur. We have never held that this doctrine may be used in a medical malpractice action to prove negligence. The rule in Alabama is that expert medical testimony is required to establish what is and what is not proper medical treatment and procedure. See, Moses v. Gaba, 435 So.2d 58 (Ala.1983).
Expert medical testimony is required in this case to describe the proper use, purpose, insertion, and removal of a Penrose drain. Drs. Halpern and Campbell testified that a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
William SCOTT as Pers. Representatives v. RAYHRER
...v. Milwaukee Medical Clinic, S.C., supra, 270 N.W.2d at p. 86.) The Alabama Supreme Court reached a contrary conclusion in Gilbert v. Campbell (1983) 440 So.2d 1048. In that case, Penrose drains were inserted in a patient's rectum after surgery to remove a tumor in the colon. The first drai......
-
Otwell v. Bryant
...in malpractice cases, expert medical testimony is required to establish a scintilla of evidence against a physician. See, Gilbert v. Campbell, 440 So.2d 1048 (Ala.1983); Moses v. Gaba, 435 So.2d 58 (Ala.1983). There was no expert testimony elicited that was critical of the care and treatmen......
-
Powell v. Mullins
...for the cesarean delivery of the plaintiff's third child. The trial court, believing the case to be controlled by Gilbert v. Campbell, 440 So.2d 1048 (Ala.1983), granted the defendant's motion for directed verdict because the plaintiff failed to "put on medical testimony to say that the sta......
-
Bell v. Hart
...to what is such reasonable care, diligence, and skill (what is and what is not proper medical treatment and procedure). Gilbert v. Campbell, 440 So.2d 1048 (Ala.1983). There are two exceptions to the foregoing general rule that have been recognized. First, where the want of skill or lack of......