Hair v. Sorensen
| Citation | 247 N.W. 651,215 Iowa 1229 |
| Decision Date | 04 April 1933 |
| Docket Number | No. 41503.,41503. |
| Parties | HAIR v. SORENSEN. |
| Court | Iowa Supreme Court |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from District Court, Cass County; Earl Peters, Judge.
This is an action to recover damages alleged to have been caused by the negligence of the defendant-appellee, a physician and surgeon, in his treatment of a broken leg. A verdict was directed for the defendant at the conclusion of plaintiff's testimony, and plaintiff-appellant appeals. The material facts are stated in the opinion.
Affirmed.J. J. Hess, of Council Bluffs, and G. C. Dalton, of Atlantic, for appellant.
Dutcher, Walker & Ries, of Iowa City, and Swan, Martin & Martin, of Atlantic, for appellee.
Paul Hair, a boy ten years of age, was injured at Cumberland, Iowa, on May 12, 1930, by the collapse of seating supports in a tent show. He sustained a simple transverse or square fracture of the femur at a point two-thirds up from the knee to the hip. The defendant, a practicing physician and surgeon in the town of Cumberland, took charge of the case at the request of the parents of the injured boy. The boy was carried on a board or improvised stretcher to the doctor's office where some attempt was apparently made to reduce the fracture, and, according to testimony of plaintiff's witnesses, the defendant stated that the fracture was reduced and the bones placed in apposition at that time. It was determined that it would be necessary to use an X-ray machine to reduce the fracture, or to determine the exact position of the broken bone. In order to do this it was necessary to transport the boy to Atlantic, which was eighteen miles away, and in order to do this the doctor caused to be constructed out of boards a splint in the nature of a trough in which cotton was placed and the leg laid therein, binding the same to the trough at the top and bottom, the trough extending from the boy's crotch to the ankle. In this situation the boy was transported to Atlantic, and upon his arrival there the X-ray machine was used and disclosed that the bones were not in apposition. The boy was placed in a hospital at Atlantic, and extension apparatus, consisting of weights and pulleys, was attached to the injured leg in order that the contraction of the muscles might be overcome and the bones placed in apposition. This treatment did not accomplish the desired results and after nine days an attempt was made to reduce the fracture by placing the boy under an anaesthetic. A similar attempt was made two days later, but both were unsuccessful. A Thomas splint was then placed upon the leg. This was also an extension arrangement and was a further attempt to overcome the contraction of the muscles and permit the setting of the bones. Nothing was accomplished by this treatment, and at this juncture, the father becoming dissatisfied with the treatment of the boy at the hospital, removed him from the hospital and from the care of Dr. Sorensen and another doctor, and took him to another hospital and placed him in charge of one Dr. Jones. On June 5th, or four or five days after the boy was placed in charge of Dr. Jones, by the use of certain weights and pulleys, the fracture was reduced by the use of similar extension methods, and the weights and pulleys attached to the leg by Dr. Jones remained thereon until July 1st when they were removed. It appears that the boy suffered pain and became quite nervous before the fracture was finally reduced.
Dr. Jones was the only expert witness who testified upon the trial. He testified that it is ordinarily impossible to reduce a fracture of this kind without the use of some extension arrangement in order to tire out the muscles and place the bones in apposition, and he expressed the opinion that a reduction of the fracture could not be obtained immediately after the accident, but that if they were able to get the bones in apposition the leg should at once be placed in a permanent splint or on tension and that weights and pulleys were usually and ordinarily used for that purpose. He also testified that there were various kinds of splints and extension apparatus used by various doctors, and did not, at any time, testify that the treatment of the boy's injured leg by Dr. Sorensen, the defendant, was not the ordinary and usual treatment used by ordinary and skillful physicians and surgeons in that territory. The nearest approach to anything of this kind that we are able to find in the record was Dr. Jones' statement that after the bones were placed in apposition the leg should be immobilized by the use of proper splints or extensions to prevent the bones from slipping by reason of the contraction of the muscles, and that if the bones were placed in apposition immediately following the fracture such appliances should have been used to retain them in position; but Dr. Jones also expressed the opinion that the bones were not placed in apposition immediately after the injury.
At the close of the plaintiff's testimony, the substance of which we have detailed above, a motion was made by the defendant to withdraw certain issues and alleged grounds of negligence from the consideration of the jury, and also for a directed verdict. These motions were sustained by the trial court. A verdict was directed for the defendant, and from such rulings the plaintiff has appealed.
The grounds of negligence upon which the appellant relies are: That in not putting a splint on the broken leg so as to hold the ends of the bone in apposition while the plaintiff was being moved from Cumberland to Atlantic, the defendant was negligent; that the defendant was negligent in using the appliance in which he placed the plaintiff's leg in removing him from Cumberland to Atlantic, and that such appliance was not fit for such use, and that the broken leg was so negligently placed therein that the broken bone became disconnected; that the defendant was negligent in keeping the plaintiff under his care from May 12, 1930, to May 30, 1930, in the hospital without resetting said broken bone; that the defendant was negligent in putting the plaintiff under ether for excessive periods of time in his attempt to reduce the fracture.
The errors assigned upon which plaintiff seeks a reversal are:
1. That the court erred in directing a verdict for the defendant for the reasons:
(a) The evidence shows defendant did not exercise the average degree of skill and care exercised by members of the profession in the community in which the defendant practiced, and by reason thereof plaintiff was injured and suffered pain and mental agony.
(b) The evidence shows that the defendant was negligent in keeping the plaintiff under his care from May 12, 1930, to May 30, 1930, without resetting the broken bone.
(c) The evidence shows the defendant was negligent in administering ether to plaintiff for excessive periods of time.
(d) The evidence shows that the defendant was negligent in not using proper cast or splints on the broken limb immediately after the injury occurred.
(e) The evidence shows the defendant was negligent in not using a splint, which would immobilize the limb after the bones had been set.
(f) The evidence shows the defendant was negligent in treating the injured limb and in not resetting the bones within a reasonable time.
(g) The evidence shows that the box or splint used while the plaintiff was being removed from Cumberland to Atlantic was not a fit appliance for that purpose and that defendant was negligent in so using such appliance.
2. That the court erred in sustaining the objection to certain questions propounded by the plaintiff to the witness, Dr. C. R. Jones.
[1] Under assignment of error No. 1, we may consider (a), (b), (c), and (f) together. After a very careful reading of the record from the transcript of the evidence, which has been certified to us, it is our conclusion that there is no evidence supporting plaintiff's claims under the assignments of error indicated. There is absolutely no evidence showing that the defendant did not use the average degree of skill and care exercised by members of his profession in the community in which he practiced. There is no evidence that what the defendant did or omitted to do caused the plaintiff to suffer pain, or that the defendant was negligent in not reducing the fracture during the time the plaintiff was under his care, and there is no evidence that the use of ether by the defendant in attempting to reduce the fracture was not a usual, ordinary, and skillful practice in such cases. And no ill results from such use are shown.
The plaintiff strenuously insists under the subheads (d), (e), and (g) that the defendant was negligent in the use of the improvised splint or trough in which the plaintiff was transported from Cumberland to Atlantic, and that such appliance was not a fit appliance for the purpose for...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Downer v. Veilleux
...the defendant was something other than that which the average and reasonably skillful physician would have employed. Hair v. Sorensen, 1933, 215 Iowa 1229, 247 N.W. 651; Neifert v. Hasley, 1907, 149 Mich. 232, 112 N.W. The standard by which a physician's conduct is to be measured is not sim......
- Hair v. Sorensen