Hawkes v. Lewis, S-95-649
Decision Date | 28 March 1997 |
Docket Number | No. S-95-649,S-95-649 |
Citation | 252 Neb. 178,560 N.W.2d 844 |
Parties | Nadean J. HAWKES, Appellant, v. Kirk C. LEWIS, M.D., and Jeffrey B. Itkin, M.D., Appellees. |
Court | Nebraska Supreme Court |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Directed Verdict: Evidence. A directed verdict is properly granted only where reasonable minds cannot differ and can draw but one conclusion from the evidence, that is to say, where an issue should be decided as a matter of law.
2. Witnesses: Testimony: Juries. Where a witness makes contradictory statements, the question of what the facts really were is for the jury.
3. Negligence: Physicians and Surgeons: Liability. The surgeon in charge of an operation is liable for the negligence of the assistant surgeon.
Daniel G. Dolan and Stephen Leuchtman, Omaha, for appellant.
J. Joseph McQuillan and Scott A. Calkins, of Walentine, O'Toole, McQuillan & Gordon, Omaha, for appellee Lewis.
William M. Lamson, Jr., and William R. Settles, of Kennedy, Holland, DeLacy & Svoboda, Omaha, for appellee Itkin.
The plaintiff-appellant, Nadean J. Hawkes, seeks to recover damages for the alleged medical malpractice of the defendant-appellee surgeon, Kirk C. Lewis, M.D., and the defendant-appellee assistant surgeon, Jeffrey B. Itkin, M.D. At the close of the plaintiff's case, the district court directed a verdict in favor of Itkin and dismissed the action as to him. In accordance with the verdict rendered at the conclusion of the trial in favor of Lewis, the district court subsequently dismissed the action against him as well. In appealing to the Nebraska Court of Appeals, Hawkes assigned to the district court a number of errors, including that it had improvidently directed a verdict in favor of Itkin. Under our authority to regulate the caseloads of the Court of Appeals and of this court, we, on our own motion, moved the matter to our docket. For the reasons hereinafter set forth, we now reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the cause for a new trial as to both Lewis and Itkin.
Lewis and Itkin performed an abdominal hysterectomy on Hawkes. After making a low transverse incision, dissecting the skin and subcutaneous tissue, and separating certain muscles, the abdominal wall was opened and the small bowel packed away from the pelvis and into the abdominal cavity. The packing was done by using cotton packs to hold the bowel away from the pelvic cavity, leaving the bowel approximately 3 inches below the mesenteric artery. Lewis then completed the operation. At that point, Itkin's involvement in Hawkes' care ended, and Lewis became responsible for her postoperative care.
Believing Hawkes had recovered to a stable condition, Lewis released her from the hospital. A few days later, Hawkes was rehospitalized on an emergency basis and found to have suffered a tear to the mesenteric artery. The tear was thereupon repaired.
There was evidence that the tear would not have occurred in the absence of negligence in pushing the bowel, while it was being packed, either too far, too hard, or both too far and too hard.
During the presentation of her case, Hawkes offered portions of Itkin's and Lewis' pretrial deposition testimony. With regard to who packed the bowel, Itkin stated:
....
....
However, when asked if he had to move Hawkes' "transverse colon" during the surgery, Lewis answered in his deposition:
....
....
....
(Emphasis supplied.)
This appeal is controlled by the rule that a directed verdict is properly granted only where reasonable minds cannot differ and can draw but one conclusion from the evidence, that is to say, where an issue should be decided as a matter of law. See, World Radio Labs. v. Coopers & Lybrand, 251 Neb. 261, 557 N.W.2d 1 (1996); Dolberg v. Paltani, 250 Neb. 297, 549 N.W.2d 635 (1996); Floyd v. Worobec, 248 Neb. 605, 537 N.W.2d 512 (1995).
While Itkin denied that he did any packing of the bowel, Lewis' testimony is self-contradictory, stating at one point that both he and Itkin were doing it, and at another point that he, Lewis, could not remember how many of...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Breeden v. Anesthesia West, PC
...the ultimate responsibility for the performance of duties owed by a physician to his or her patient is nondelegable. Hawkes v. Lewis, 252 Neb. 178, 560 N.W.2d 844 (1997); Long v. Hacker, 246 Neb. 547, 520 N.W.2d 195 (1994); Swierczek v. Lynch, 237 Neb. 469, 466 N.W.2d 512 In Hawkes, supra, ......
-
Risor v. Nebraska Boiler
...785 (2008). See, also, § 48-151(2). 62. Money v. Tyrrell Flowers, 275 Neb. 602, 748 N.W.2d 49 (2008). 63. Id. 64. See, Hawkes v. Lewis, 252 Neb. 178, 560 N.W.2d 844 (1997); Stansbury v. HEP, Inc., 248 Neb. 706, 539 N.W.2d 28 65. See Morris, supra note 13, citing Vonderschmidt, supra note 56......
-
Doe v. Zedek
...Martin v. Roth, 252 Neb. 969, 568 N.W.2d 553 (1997); Ethanair Corp. v. Thompson, 252 Neb. 245, 561 N.W.2d 225 (1997); Hawkes v. Lewis, 252 Neb. 178, 560 N.W.2d 844 (1997). Zedek asserts that there was no competent evidence that Doe sustained any damage as a proximate result of any of his al......
-
Hawkes v. Lewis
...trial as to both defendants, finding that the district court erred in granting a directed verdict in favor of Itkin. Hawkes v. Lewis, 252 Neb. 178, 560 N.W.2d 844 (1997). At the original trial, Lewis was represented by the law firm of Walentine, O'Toole, McQuillan & Gordon (hereinafter Wale......