Gramaldi v. Zeglio

• Citation: 129 A. 475
• Decision Date: 15 June 1925
• Docket Number: No. 50.,50.
• Parties: GRAMALDI v. ZEGLIO et al.
• Court: United States State Supreme Court (New Jersey)

129 A. 475

GRAMALDI

v. ZEGLIO et al.

No. 50.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

June 15, 1925.

Suit by Albert Gramaldi against Peter J. Zeglio and others. The trial court granted a motion for a directed verdict as to the named defendant, and denied it as to other defendants. On plaintiff's rule to show cause. Rule discharged.

Argued October term, 1924, before GUMMERE, C. J., and PARKER and KATZENBACH, JJ.

Richard Doherty, of Jersey City, for plaintiff.

Edwards & Smith, of Jersey City (Edwin F. Smith, of Jersey City, of counsel), for defendants.

PER CURIAM. This case is before us on a plaintiff's rule to show cause. The question involved is whether the trial court ruled properly in directing the jury to return a verdict in favor of one of the above defendants, Peter Zeglio. The suit was instituted by the plaintiff, Gramaldi, against three physicians for malpractice. The evidence showed that on July 9, 1922, Gramaldi was in front of the station of the Central Railroad Company at Plainfield, N. J. He was with a friend by the name of Lang. They were in a Ford car waiting for Mrs. Lang to return from New York. When Mrs. Lang did not return on the train arriving at Plainfield at 10:53 p. m., Mr. Lang suggested that they leave the station. Gramaldi volunteered to crank the car. While attempting to do so, the crank flew back and struck his wrist. He was injured. His wrist was bent back, and the bones above the wrist broken. He was taken to the Muhlenberg Hospital in Plainfield. There were four people at the station who testified that the bone or bones did not protrude through the flesh at the time of the injury and the hand was not soiled. Upon reaching the hospital he was received by two young physicians, internes, Abraham Julius and Julius Linke. Gramaldi contended these internes caused a simple fracture to result in a compound fracture by their unskillful manipulation of his arm. As a result of this compound fracture, infection set in which produced a disease known as osteomyelitis, which resulted in the loss of the use of plaintiff's arm. On the day of the accident the defendant Peter Zeglio was the visiting surgeon at the hospital. His assistant was Dr. Malatesta. Upon the arrival of Gramaldi to the hospital his clothing about the arm was removed. Dr. Julius attempted to get Dr. Zeglio. He could not reach him. He did. however, reach Dr. Malatesta, who came to the hospital within five minutes from the time of receiving the call. The defendants contended that nothing had been done to the arm in the meantime. They diagnosed the injury as a compound dislocation of the ulna. They testified at the trial that the bone was sticking out through a wound at the wrist. The hand was dirty and greasy. There was also a compound fracture of the radius. Dr. Malatesta and the internes administered ether to Gramaldi. His arm was scrubbed and washed. The wound was saturated with benzine and iodine. Sterile cloths were used. Manipulation was applied. The bones were slipped back into place. The wound made by the protruding bone was so jagged that a stitch was required. After this the patient was put to bed. Dr. Zeglio did not see the plaintiff until the following day. When he came to the hospital on the morning of July 10th he examined the chart, received a history of the case, and looked at the patient. Gramaldi had no fever. He saw him again the next day. The plaintiff complained of pain. His temperature had risen. The splints were removed. His arm was found slightly swollen about the wrist. Some serum was exuding from the wound on the palmer surface of the. hand. The wound was opened. The stitch taken out. A drain w as inserted to prevent infection. The wound was redressed. X-rays were taken, On July 12th Dr. Zeglio again saw the plaintiff. The splints were taken off. The arm was more swollen, and slightly redder. Pus was mixed with the exuding serum. The wound was cleaned. Another drain was inserted. The testimony showed that infection is never preventable. All that can be done is to assist nature in throwing it off. Infection comes from outside sources. It also comes from the blood itself. From a culture taken and examined in the laboratory of the hospital, the existence of staphylococci and striptococci were discovered but no gas bacillus. The same treatment was continued. The infection apparently disappeared, as the temperature of the plaintiff became normal on July 15th and continued normal until the case passed from the observation of Dr. Zeglio, who was succeeded on August 1st as visiting surgeon by Dr. B. V. D. Hedges. At the time Dr. Hedges became the visiting surgeon there was no symptom of periostitis of the ulna. Later the condition of Gramaldi's arm became worse. Osteomyelitis developed. The plaintiff insisted upon leaving the hospital on August 22d, against the advice of the physicians. He went to Bellevue Hospital in the City of New York. The surgeons there advised amputation of the arm. He would not consent to this. Deep incisions were then made to drain the arm and check infection. These were successful. The arm was saved but its use impaired. The plaintiff suffered greatly. His ability to work has been lessened as a result of the accident. Misfortune has overtaken him. It does not necessarily follow, however, that some one is responsible for his condition and must respond in damages for his suffering and reduced earning power. The skill and care a physician is required to give a patient is that ordinarily possessed and exercised by others in the profession. The most recent case to this effect is the ease of Lolli v. Gray (N. J. Err. & App.) 128 A. 256, in which the opinion was...