Glenn v. Prestegord
| Decision Date | 15 July 1970 |
| Docket Number | No. B--2087,B--2087 |
| Citation | 456 S.W.2d 901 |
| Parties | James C. GLENN, M.D., Petitioner, v. Jackie PRESTEGORD et vir, Respondents. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Stokes, Carnahan & Fields, O. P. Fields, Jr., Amarillo, for petitioner.
Harris E. Lofthus, Amarillo, for respondent.
Jackie Prestegord and her husband were plaintiffs in this medical malpractice suit against the defendant, Dr. James C. Glenn. A prior appeal followed a summary judgment in favor of Dr. Glenn. The court of civil appeals there affirmed (436 S.W.2d 623) but we remanded the case for trial. 441 S.W.2d 185. Upon the subsequent trial a directed verdict was granted defendant at the conclusion of plaintiffs' case-in-chief. The court of civil appeals reversed and remanded. 451 S.W.2d 791. We reverse the court of civil appeals judgment and affirm the trial court judgment in favor of the defendant.
Dr. Glenn was the physician for Mrs. Prestegord during her pregnancy which began in August and ended deplorably in November of 1966. She did well until October 17, but she then encountered pain, low-grade fever and vaginal spotting. These symptoms persisted until November 17 when she began to miscarry and was hospitalized. It was decided that the fetus was dead and was heavily infected. An attempt was made to induce the completion of miscarriage, but by November 20 it became necessary to operate. The uterus could not be opened in the abdomen without promoting the infection; so a complete hysterectomy was performed.
Only four witnesses testified personally at this trial: Mr. and Mrs. Prestegord, Marilyn Aufleger, a friend who accompanied Mrs. Prestegord to Dr. Glenn's office, and Dr. Hegedus who saw the plaintiff in Dr. Glenn's absence on November 17 and who testified on personal knowledge that she was properly treated during her hospitalization and operation. To complete plaintiffs' case, a few questions and answers were read from the deposition of Dr. Glenn.
The testimony was consistent except for Mrs. Prestegord's contention that she told Dr. Glenn on each visit of pain or a dull ache at a particular site in her abdomen, while Dr. Glenn testified that she reported no pain other than abdominal cramping. He explained that there was a medical difference between cramping and constant pain, and said that if he had been told of the latter he would have made further evaluation and, perhaps, required more tests.
Since we are testing a directed verdict against Mrs. Prestegord, we must accept all evidence in her favor. So we assume that she did report a localized ache or pain to Dr. Glenn. Because of his own testimony we then assume that he should have given further attention to his patient.
There is no other evidence in this record that could be found or assumed to support plaintiffs' contention that the defendant was negligent in some particular that caused the loss of her ability to have children or the pain and damages suffered during her final hospitalization.
Whatever could be decided as to negligence, there is no evidence tending to prove that Mrs. Prestegord's ultimate...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Doe
...The defendant is required to meet the plaintiff's case as pleaded and to demonstrate that the plaintiff cannot prevail. Glenn v. Prestegord, 456 S.W.2d 901 (Tex.1970); Guidry v. Neches Butane Products Co., 476 S.W.2d 666 (Tex.1972). There can be no further burden upon the plaintiff if the r......
-
Sakowitz, Inc. v. Steck
...that a movant for summary judgment must bear. Missouri-K.-T. Ry. Co. v. City of Dallas, 623 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex.1981); Glenn v. Prestegord, 456 S.W.2d 901 (Tex.1970). Instead, summary judgments must stand on their merits and cannot be granted on the failure of the non-movant's proof if the......
-
Med Center Bank v. Fleetwood
...trial on the merits." Allstate Ins. Co. v. Smith, 471 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tex.Civ.App.--El Paso, 1971 no writ); see also Glenn v. Prestegord, 456 S.W.2d 901, 902 (Tex.1970). An "appeal after a full and lengthy trial on the merits with a jury acting as the finder of facts, differs in a very mat......
-
Flying Diamond-West Madisonville Limited Partnership v. GW Petroleum, Inc., No. 10-07-00281-CV (Tex. App. 8/26/2009)
...1993, writ denied). See also Allstate Ins. Co. v. Smith, 471 S.W.2d 620, 623 (Tex. Civ. App.-El Paso, 1971 no writ); Glenn v. Prestegord, 456 S.W.2d 901, 902 (Tex. 1970). The standard of review in an appeal from summary judgment is very different in that the reviewing court is required to r......