Hayes v. Lufkin
| Decision Date | 26 November 1920 |
| Docket Number | 21,939 |
| Citation | 179 N.W. 1007,147 Minn. 225 |
| Parties | KATE BORLAND HAYES v. HARRY M. LUFKIN |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Action in the district court for Ramsey county to recover $6,455.38 damages for malpractice. The answer alleged that plaintiff employed defendant to treat her for eczema on both of her legs; that defendant explained the treatment by X-ray and the probability of it being beneficial, and at the same time explained to her that there was always danger in using the X-ray of having a burn result, regardless of the care in its use and application; that plaintiff thereupon directed defendant to proceed to treat the eczema with the X-ray; that defendant used the greatest skill and care and was not guilty of any negligence whatever in the premises. The case was tried before Olin B. Lewis, J., who when plaintiff rested denied defendant's motion to dismiss the action, and at the close of the testimony denied his motion for a directed verdict, and a jury which returned a verdict for $6,200. From an order, denying his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict and denying a new trial, if plaintiff consented to a reduction of the verdict to $4,700, defendant appealed. Affirmed.
X-ray treatment -- verdict sustained by evidence.
In this, a malpractice case, the evidence stated in the opinion was sufficient to support a verdict charging a physician with negligence in administering the X-ray treatment to a patient suffering from eczema.
C. D. & R. D. O'Brien, for appellant.
Lancaster Simpson, Junell & Dorsey, for respondent.
This action was brought to recover damages for malpractice. Plaintiff had a verdict for $6,200, reduced by the court to $4,700, and defendant appealed from an order denying his alternative motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict or for a new trial.
The assignments of error which were argued present but one question, viz.: Did the evidence establish defendant's alleged negligence? In considering the evidence we are guided by the rule that a physician is only bound to exercise such reasonable care and skill as is usually exercised by physicians in good standing in their profession, and have assumed that the rule applies to the treatment of disease by the application of X-rays. Henslin v. Wheaton, 91 Minn. 219, 97 N.W. 882, 64 L.R.A. 126, 103 Am. St. 504, 1 Ann. Cas. 19; Holt v. Ten Broeck, 134 Minn. 458, 159 N.W. 1073, Ann. Cas. 1918E, 256; Coombs v. King, 107 Me. 376, 78 A. 468, Ann. Cas. 1912C, 1121; George v Shannon, 92 Kan. 801, 142 P. 967, Ann. Cas. 1916B, 338; Gore v. Brockman, 138 Mo.App. 231, 119 S.W. 1082; Hales v. Raines, 162 Mo.App. 46, 141 S.W. 917.
In October, 1918, plaintiff went to defendant's office for a medical examination, in the course of which defendant discovered that she had eczema on both ankles. He advised the X-ray treatment of the disease, and began to give it in November, 1918. The patches of eczema were exposed to the X-rays six times in all at intervals of two or three days. Defendant testified that the left ankle was exposed for treatment on four occasions only, and the right ankle on each of the six occasions when treatment was administered, and that on the first four occasions both ankles were exposed to the rays at the same time. The parties differ in their testimony as to the duration of the exposures. Plaintiff testified that they continued for 20 minutes, and defendant that they lasted from 10 to 15 minutes. It was testified that when the human skin is exposed to the rays for a sufficient length of time a condition somewhat similar to sunburn is developed, technically known as a reaction, and indicating where eczema is being treated, that the rays have taken effect. After each treatment defendant looked for a reaction, but saw no evidences of it until after the final exposure. A little later the evidences of a reaction became pronounced, for on December 12, 1918, plaintiff's left ankle was blistered and ulcerating. Thereafter and until January 21, 1919, defendant treated her for the sore on this ankle, which quite clearly was the result of a burn caused by exposure to the X-rays. On the last mentioned date she dismissed him and consulted another physician, Dr. Carlaw, of Minneapolis. Defendant testified that when plaintiff left him there was an open sore on her left ankle about two inches in diameter and that her right ankle was free from eczema and uninjured by the six exposures to the X-rays. Dr. Carlaw continued to dress the sore until the latter part of March, 1919, when he had plaintiff...
To continue reading
Request your trial