Green v. Stone
| Decision Date | 04 December 1934 |
| Citation | 176 A. 123,119 Conn. 300 |
| Court | Connecticut Supreme Court |
| Parties | GREEN v. STONE. |
Appeal from Superior Court, New Haven County; Ernest A. Inglis Judge.
Action by Gertrude Green against Emerson L. Stone to recover damages for injuries alleged to have been due to the negligence and unskillful surgical treatment of the plaintiff by the defendant, brought to superior court in New Haven county and tried to the jury. A verdict for plaintiff was set aside upon defendant's motion, and plaintiff appeals.
No error.
In action for damages for negligence and unskillful surgical treatment, evidence that physician should have treated plaintiff more promptly, but not showing that such failure caused injury, but only that earlier treatment might have been beneficial, held not to authorize verdict for plaintiff.
Philip R. Shiff and Robert J. Woodruff, both of New Haven, for appellant.
Cyril Coleman and Lawrence A. Howard, both of Hartford, for appellee.
Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HAINES, BANKS, AVERY, and DICKENSON, JJ.
This was an action for a breach of contract and for malpractice against the defendant, a physician and surgeon of New Haven. The jury brought in a verdict in favor of the plaintiff which the trial court set aside on the ground that there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff's injuries were caused by any act or omission of the defendant. The only matter involved in this appeal is the correctness of the action of the trial court in setting aside the verdict. From the evidence certified, it appears that the parties were not such in dispute up to a certain point. The defendant was a specialist in obstetrics practicing in New Haven. On January 4, 1931, he was retained by the husband of the plaintiff to attend her in connection with the delivery of an expected child. The plaintiff was then a young married woman and about three months pregnant. The defendant saw her at regular intervals of about a month, and, as she approached the termination of her pregnancy, the intervals between the visits were shorter, his last examination being on July 30th, when he found that she was practically at the end of her term. She entered the New Haven Hospital on August 4th, and the child was delivered upon the day following. The plaintiff's period of labor was somewhat more protracted than ordinary; and, owing to the fact that it was her first child and she was a closely built woman, the defendant made an incision in her perineum to prevent the rupture of that tissue at the time of delivery. After delivery, the incision was sutured. A few days after delivery, the plaintiff complained to the defendant of pain in the region of the sutures, but was reassured by him. Ten days after delivery, the sutures were removed by the defendant at the hospital, the wound examined by him, and it appeared perfectly healed; the plaintiff was discharged from the hospital on the day following, with directions to see the defendant four weeks later for the purpose of an examination and check up.
Up to this point, there is nothing in the evidence upon which the plaintiff could claim that the care and treatment received by her was other than the care and skill required of a specialist in this line of surgery practicing in that locality. The dispute between the parties relates to what occurred after she left the hospital and returned to her home. The plaintiff claimed that a few days after leaving the hospital she noticed a pus discharge from the sutured holes and felt pain; that she telephoned the defendant and reported these facts immediately, and thereafter called him the following two weeks five or six times, but each time was told to wait until six weeks after delivery for a further examination. The defendant denied that she had informed him during this period of a pus discharge from the sutures, and had no recollection that she had telephoned to him at all. However, six weeks after delivery, on September 14th, the defendant examined the plaintiff at his office. At that time the incision in the perineum appeared to him to be healed, but he observed what appeared to be a dimple on the skin at the bottom of the incision. He was unable to insert a probe at this point, but, as the plaintiff complained of tenderness in the region, he directed her to return for further examination at a later date. On October 9th she was examined by him again, when he found a small sinus opening at the point where the dimple had been about the size of the lead in a pencil. He was able to follow this opening with a fine probe to a depth of about three-quarters of an inch, where it appeared to end. He irrigated and curetted it, and touched up the edges with silver nitrate. On November 7th he saw the patient again, but, as he claimed, was unable to treat her because of the hysterical condition she was in, and directed her to call later. Plaintiff, on the trial, claimed, and the defendant denied, that he had at that time informed her that he did not know what to do and that her condition was incurable. On November 9th the plaintiff visited Dr. Rand, who made an examination and found a sinus of about the same size as that described by the defendant, and treated it in the same manner. As the sinus did not disappear upon treatment, on November 28th Dr. Rand performed an operation which consisted in excising the tract. As the condition did not heal after this operation, on April 22, 1922, he performed a second operation, at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Borkowski v. Sacheti
...the trial court said: "Well, I indicated in chambers, especially this morning, that I'm relying on a trilogy of cases, Green v. Stone [119 Conn. 300, 176 A. 123 (1934) ], Connellan v. Coffey, [122 Conn. 136, 187 A. 901 (1936] ), and principally the Tulin case [Grody v. Tulin, 170 Conn. 443,......
-
Katsetos v. Nolan
...further question arises as to whether a failure to observe such duty is a proximate cause of any injury to the patient. Green v. Stone, 119 Conn. 300, 305, 176 A. 123. In using the exact language from other cases Johnson v. Vaughn, supra, and Miller v. Dore, supra, that 'failure to observe ......
-
Struckman v. Burns
...must rest upon more than surmise or conjecture. Witkowski v. Goldberg, 115 Conn. 693, 696, 163 A. 413 [1932]; Green v. Stone, 119 Conn. 300, 306, 176 A. 123 [1934]. A trier is not concerned with possibilities but with reasonable probabilities. Richardson v. Pratt & Whitney Mfg. Co., 129 Con......
-
Basinger v. Roccapriore, No. CV02-0458993S (CT 1/10/2005)
...the plaintiff must prove that any failure by the defendant was the proximate cause of the plaintiff's claimed injuries. Green v. Stone, 119 Conn. 300 (1934); Ardoline v. Keegan, 140 Conn. 552, 556 (1954). No matter how negligent a party may have been, if his negligent act bears no relation ......