Graham v. Roberts, 23290.
| Court | United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (District of Columbia) |
| Writing for the Court | WRIGHT, MacKINNON and WILKEY, Circuit |
| Citation | 142 US App. DC 305,441 F.2d 995 |
| Parties | Raymond GRAHAM, Appellant, v. Vernell R. ROBERTS. |
| Docket Number | No. 23290.,23290. |
| Decision Date | 12 October 1970 |
142 US App. DC 305, 441 F.2d 995 (1970)
Raymond GRAHAM, Appellant,
v.
Vernell R. ROBERTS.
No. 23290.
United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit.
Argued September 14, 1970.
Decided October 12, 1970.
Mr. John A. Shorter, Jr., Washington, D. C., for appellant.
Mr. Walter J. Murphy, Jr., Washington, D. C., with whom Mr. John L. Ridge, Jr., Washington, D. C., was on the brief, for appellee.
Before WRIGHT, MacKINNON and WILKEY, Circuit Judges.
WILKEY, Circuit Judge:
Appellant Graham brought an action for malpractice against appellee Roberts, a local dentist, in which the jury returned a verdict in favor of appellant for $10,668.45. On motion for judgment non obstante verdicto, the District Court granted judgment for appellee on the ground there was not a sufficient showing of proximate cause by the appellant. Finding that the jury's verdict was sufficiently well grounded in the evidence, we reverse the District Court's judgment and reinstate the verdict of the jury.
The appellant Graham, a patient of the appellee Roberts, did not allege that the dentist was negligent in extracting an upper molar, but rather that the dentist was negligent in continuing to treat a worsening condition of pansinusitis over a period of four months, instead of referring appellant's condition to a properly qualified medical specialist for treatment when appellant's condition became apparent to the appellee. The appellee's testimony showed that the removal of an upper molar created a communication channel between the mouth and the maxillary sinus. Following the extraction in May 1963, appellant developed a sinus infection which drained through the opening created by the extraction into his mouth. This sinus infection became progressively worse and by September it required surgery, 22 days' hospitalization, and six months' follow-up treatment before appellant was fully recovered. Although there was no allegation or proof of negligence in the extraction itself, uncontradicted expert opinion was that the extraction did initiate the sinus infection, a rare but not unknown occurrence. Furthermore, the infection once initiated was capable of spreading or worsening, as it was proven to have done in appellant's case. The appellee himself testified that he as a dentist would not try to cure an infected sinus, but would rather close off the connection between the mouth and the sinus and refer the patient to a specialist for proper treatment.
Salient to a determination of whether the jury's verdict for the appellant was supported by evidence of proximate cause is the testimony as to how many times and when appellant was seen by the appellee dentist at the latter's office. According to the dentist's office records he made the extraction on 14 May, at which time he noted an oral anthroum opening. Appellee testified: "I told him he had an anthroum communication and I told him sometimes you get trouble from it and sometimes you have a problem from it. I said, `If you have problems with this, come back and let me know and we will treat it further.'" This appellant did on the following day and was given a prescription for medication. According to his memory and his office records, the appellee testified that the appellant did not return until August 17, over three months later. At that time, according to appellee, appellant had "a fistula draining at the extraction site," an "infection of the socket and an infection of the sinus." Appellee "Treated the infection at the site of the socket," but did not attempt to treat the sinus infection.
However, the appellant himself testified that he returned several times in June for treatment, that there was a period in July when his sinus infection was progressively getting worse when he returned for many treatments, and that he was treated in August several times by appellee. The contradictory testimony as to how many times and when the appellant had been treated by the appellee dentist — i. e., over what period of time the appellee was given an opportunity to see the progression af appellant's undenied...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rhodes v. United States, Civil Action No. 12–0449(BAH).
...is only liable for those damages proximately caused by the defendant's actions. See, e.g., Monzel, 641 F.3d at 535;cf. Graham v. Roberts, 441 F.2d 995, 997 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1970) (in dental malpractice case in which the defendant permitted the patient's condition to worsen progressively by fai......
-
Morgan v. District Columbia, 79-588.
...factor" in bringing about the harm. Lacy, supra at 319-21; RESTATEMENT, supra § 431(a); see Graham v. Roberts, 142 U.S. App.D.C. 305, 308, 441 F.2d 995, 998 (1970).8 A mere possibility of harm attributable to the conduct is not The second, "policy" element is more complex. Even when an acto......
-
Wilkins v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 06–384(RC).
...of a plaintiff's injury.” District of Columbia v. Carlson, 793 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C.2002) (citing Lacy, 424 A.2d at 321;Graham v. Roberts, 441 F.2d 995, 998 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1970)). “The Restatement says that ‘[t]he actor's negligent conduct is a legal cause of harm to another if ... his condu......
-
Wilkins v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action 06-384 (RC)
...a plaintiff's injury." District of Columbia v. Carlson, 793 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C. 2002) (citing Lacy, 424 A.2d at 321; Graham v. Roberts, 441 F.2d 995, 998 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1970)). "The Restatement says that '[t]he actor's negligent conduct is a legal cause of harm to another if . . . his con......
-
Rhodes v. United States, Civil Action No. 12–0449(BAH).
...is only liable for those damages proximately caused by the defendant's actions. See, e.g., Monzel, 641 F.3d at 535;cf. Graham v. Roberts, 441 F.2d 995, 997 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1970) (in dental malpractice case in which the defendant permitted the patient's condition to worsen progressively by fai......
-
Morgan v. District Columbia, 79-588.
...factor" in bringing about the harm. Lacy, supra at 319-21; RESTATEMENT, supra § 431(a); see Graham v. Roberts, 142 U.S. App.D.C. 305, 308, 441 F.2d 995, 998 (1970).8 A mere possibility of harm attributable to the conduct is not The second, "policy" element is more complex. Even when an acto......
-
Wilkins v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 06–384(RC).
...of a plaintiff's injury.” District of Columbia v. Carlson, 793 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C.2002) (citing Lacy, 424 A.2d at 321;Graham v. Roberts, 441 F.2d 995, 998 n. 3 (D.C.Cir.1970)). “The Restatement says that ‘[t]he actor's negligent conduct is a legal cause of harm to another if ... his condu......
-
Wilkins v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action 06-384 (RC)
...a plaintiff's injury." District of Columbia v. Carlson, 793 A.2d 1285, 1288 (D.C. 2002) (citing Lacy, 424 A.2d at 321; Graham v. Roberts, 441 F.2d 995, 998 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1970)). "The Restatement says that '[t]he actor's negligent conduct is a legal cause of harm to another if . . . his con......