Hill v. Stewart, No. 44890

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Mississippi
• Writing for the Court: RODGERS; ETHERIDGE
• Citation: 209 So.2d 809
• Parties: Mrs. Donna M. HILL et al. v. Dr. Leo O. STEWART.
• Decision Date: 29 April 1968
• Docket Number: No. 44890

Page 809

209 So.2d 809 Mrs. Donna M. HILL et al.
v.
Dr. Leo O. STEWART. No. 44890. Supreme Court of Mississippi. April 29, 1968.
Rehearing Denied May 20, 1968.

Page 810

Bryan & Gordon, Pascagoula, Holleman, Hurlbert & Necaise, Gulfport, for appellants.

Wiesenburg, McLeod, Oswald & Lockard, Pascagoula, for appellee.

RODGERS, Justice:

This is a malpractice suit filed in Jackson County, Mississippi against Dr. Leo O. Stewart by the heirs at law of Julius W. Hill, who died at the Singing River Hospital on March 11, 1965.

The declaration charges that Julius W. Hill was ill and that he employed the appellee, Dr. Leo O. Stewart, to wait upon him as his physician; that appellee examined Mr. Hill and was advised that the patient had recently lost weight, that he had frequent urinal eliminations, that he required a great deal of water to drink, that he had a loss of vision and appetite, and that he often suffered from nausea and vomiting. It charged that the appellee erroneously diagnosed Mr. Hill's illness as multiple sclerosis and influenza; that the appellee failed to use the care and skill ordinarily used by physicians in the Pascagoula, Mississippi area; that had the appellee used the care required by law he would have discovered that his patient, Mr. Hill, was suffering from uncontrolled diabetes mellitus, which required immediate treatment and the use of insulin to prevent ketosis, acidosis, coma and death; that the symptoms shown would have been recognized and diagnosed as uncontrolled diabetes by a physician of ordinary skill in that community.

It is charged that the appellee did not return to the hospital to examine the patient for a period of twenty hours after admitting him, and that during this period the patient had grown steadily worse. Finally, blood and urinal tests were made, and it was discovered that the patient was suffering from uncontrolled diabetes. Proper treatment was begun, but it came too late; the patient died.

The defendant, Dr. Leo O. Stewart, filed his answer in which he denied each charge of negligence, denied that the patient was suffering from uncontrolled diabetes

Page 811

mellitus, and denied that the patient was not treated for a period of twenty hours or that he died as a result of uncontrolled diabetes mellitus. He denied that he owed damages growing out of the death of Julius W. Hill to the heirs of the deceased.

The testimony shows that Mrs. Hill advised Dr. Stewart of the symptoms and history of Mr. Hill's illness, and that after the doctor left the patient about noon on March 9 he did not return to examine Mr. Hill until 8:30 a.m. on March 10, although during this time he had been advised that his patient's condition was deteriorating. Dr. Stewart stated on cross examination as an adverse witness that he had 'ordered a routine lab' which included an urinalysis, but did not include a blood sugar test. When he returned, he found that no report had been made. He admitted that when diabetes is suspected, 'a urinalysis and blood count should be obtained.' He said that at the time he agreed that the patient was suffering from diabetes, but now was of the opinion that the patient had died from viral pneumonitis with hyaline membrane type pneumonia, and that he had an adrenal gland crisis or failure because his adrenal glands could not fight off this infection. He said the patient also had multiple sclerosis.

Dr. Kendall Gregory testified as an expert witness on behalf of the plaintiffs and described the general standards of skill and the qualifications of a general medical practitioner in the Coast area, and said that from an examination of the medical records, hospital records, and reports of other doctors admitted into evidence, he agreed with the diagnosis of Dr. Samuel J. Simmons that Mr. Hill died from severe diabetic acidosis. He had read the reports of the pathologist with reference to his discoveries by autopsy, and pointed out that an autopsy would not reveal diabetic acidosis. He said: 'If a man has diabetes and it goes unchecked so that he develops severe acidosis, then he is very susceptible to viral pneumonia.' He said that bronchial pneumonia is present in a large percentage of autopsy examinations, and 'most always a secondary cause of death.' He testified that it should be within the knowledge of a general practitioner to have an immediate test made and to have treatment instituted under the circumstances, and that a failure to do so would be a departure from the skill and care required of a general practitioner in the Coast area. He testified that the patient in the instant case would probably have had a good chance of survival. He testified on cross examination, however, that 'it would be (his) opinion from reviewing this record that this pneumonitis and hyaline membrane disease with complication of his diabetic acidosis' caused his death. He testified that viral infections can trigger diabetes and that diabetes can also trigger viral infections. He testified that the autopsy report of the pathologist, Dr. Ezell, showed that the deceased died from (1) viral pneumonia with hyaline membrane, and (2) optic neuropathy nonspecific, possible multiple sclerosis or diabetic neuropathy.

Dr. Simmons testified that the symptoms described by Mrs. Hill to Dr. Stewart...