Goedecke v. Price

• Decision Date: 08 March 1973
• Docket Number: CA-CIV,No. 2,2
• Citation: 506 P.2d 1105,19 Ariz.App. 320
• Parties: R. Leroy GOEDECKE and Nancy Ann Goedecke, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Lillard C. PRICE and Martha Price, husband and wife, Appellees. Lillard C. PRICE and Martha Price, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Willard L. BROWN and Joyce Brown, husband and wife, Appellees. 1281.
• Court: Arizona Court of Appeals

Page 1105

506 P.2d 1105

19 Ariz.App. 320

R. Leroy GOEDECKE and Nancy Ann Goedecke, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Lillard C. PRICE and Martha Price, husband and wife, Appellees.

Lillard C. PRICE and Martha Price, husband and wife, Appellants, v. Willard L. BROWN and Joyce Brown, husband and wife, Appellees.

No. 2 CA-CIV 1281.

Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 2.

March 8, 1973.

Rehearing Denied April 11, 1973.

Fish, Briney, Duffield & Miller by Richard Briney, Tucson, for appellants Goedecke.

Messing, Hirsh & Franklin by William Messing, Tucson, for appellees Price.

Lesher & Scruggs by D. Thompson Slutes, Tucson, for appellees Brown.

HATHAWAY, Chief Judge.

These appeals arise from a medical malpractice action brought by Lillard and Martha Price against Drs. Goedecke, Brown and their respective wives. Plaintiffs alleged professional negligence through misdiagnosis and mistreatment of fractured metatarsal bones of the right foot, causing pain, suffering and anxiety reaction, producing a loss of voice.

Four days into trial, the trial court directed verdicts in favor of the defendant doctors. On motion for new trial, the court reconsidered and reversed this ruling as to the Goedeckes on the basis that it had erroneously determined that the statute of limitations had run as to them. It reaffirmed its direction of verdict in favor of the Browns based upon insufficiency of the evidence. The Goedeckes appeal from the order granting a new trial and the Prices appeal from the same order denying a new trial as to the Browns.

Lillard Price, a welder, suffered the injuries while on the job on April 23, 1968. At the time he was employed at Newell Salvage and was injured while working on a 25 ton cylinder which rolled and caught his foot against the wall of the mill in which it was situated. He left work and went to Dr. Goedecke for treatment. X-rays were taken on the first visit and Dr. Goedecke interpreted them as negative for fracture. (In September, 1969 during a workmen's compensation examination, it was discovered that the second and third metatarsal bones had been fractured and had healed normally without displacement 'and in perfect alignment'). Dr. Goedecke diagnosed and treated for an acute sprain and strain of the right ankle. The foot was 'tape-supported, strap-supported', and Price was put on crutches. Ultrasonic treatments were administered on subsequent visits to reduce the swelling and the foot was retaped. On May 8, the doctor was satisfied with his patient's progress and said he could go back to work. Treatments were continued through application of an Ace bandage, hot moist soaks twice a day at home, and ultrasonic treatment.

Soreness of the foot continued and on June 10, Mr. Price complained of losing his voice and of having 'nervous spells' in the form of 'dizzy cold sweats'. Additional x-rays were taken of the foot on August 18 and no abnormality was noticed. Since that patient's complaints continued, he was referred to Dr. Willard Brown, a doctor of Osteopathy, specializing in orthopedics. Dr. Brown concluded that the problem resulted from neuroma of the interdigital nerves and was unrelated to the fracture.

In September of 1969, while a workmen's compensation examination was in progress, Dr. Cortner observed through x-ray comparisons that Mr. Price had sustained fractures of the metatarsal bones. The fractures had theretofore remained undetected.

Mr. Price had subsequently seen various other practitioners of the healing arts, including medical doctors, psychiatrists, a neurosurgeon and a chest specialist. The principal difficulty centered on his loss of voice. His attempts to communicate were described as being at times inaudible.

The Goedeckes first contend on appeal that the trial court erred in determining that the statute of limitations had not run. They also contend that its direction of a verdict in their favor was supportable on the additional ground of insufficiency of the evidence as set forth in their motion. Since the trial court gave as its reason for ordering the new trial the commission of error in ruling that the statutes of limitations had run, appellees contend that appellate review is limited to that question, citing Santanello v. Cooper, 106 Ariz. 262, 475 P.2d 246 (1970), where our Supreme Court stated that review of an order granting a new trial is limited to those grounds specified in the order. Reluctance to disturb the jury's verdict surfaces in Santanello as a prime reason for limiting review to the particular grounds...