Hinkelman v. Wheeling Steel Corp., (CC 481)

Decision Date31 October 1933
Docket Number(CC 481)
Citation114 W.Va. 269
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court
PartiesJohn Hinkelman v. Wheeling Steel Corporation andDr. John W. Neidermeyer

Master and Servant

If a doctor, who is employed by a subscriber to the Workmen's Compensation Fund to render medical and surgical aid and treatment to its employees, is so unskilful and negligent in his treatment of an employee, injured: in the course of and resulting from his employment, that the injury is aggravated thereby, such action on the part of the doctor comes within the Compensation Act. Therefore, under such a state of facts, an action is not maintainable against the doctor.

Certified from Circuit Court, Marshall County.

Action by John Hinkleman against;he Wheeling Steel Corporation and another. The circuit court overruled a demurrer to the declaration, and certified its rulings for review.

Reversed and demurrer sustained.

Martin Brown, for plaintiff.

Erskine, Palmer & Curl, for defendants.

Woods, Judge:

The purpose of this certificate is to determine the correctness of the trial court's action in overruling a demurrer to a declaration, under which an employee of the Wheeling Steel Corporation, a subscriber to the Workmen's Compensation Fund, seeks to hold a doctor, employed by said corporation, in damages for an aggravated condition of his hand, alleged to have been due to the unskilful and negligent treatment rendered by said doctor.

The first count alleges, among other things, that the doctor was employed by the steel corporation to render medical and surgical aid; that plaintiff, an employee injured his hand in the course of and resulting from said employment; that he was required to present himself to said doctor for treat- ment; that the doctor became bound to carefully and skilfully render medical and surgical aid and to give plaintiff proper treatment, care and attention; that he failed to render the aid and treatment which the injury required, and so unskilfully and negligently conducted himself that through want of skill the injury was increased and aggravated. The second is in substance the same, except that it alleges that the company agreed as part of plaintiff's employment that he was to have first-class and expert medical and surgical aid in case of injury during his employment.

The law regards the negligence of the wrongdoer in causing the original injury as the proximate cause of the damages flowing from the subsequent negligent or...

To continue reading

Request your trial
14 cases
  • Deller v. Naymick
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 21, 1985
    ...Compensation Act. Therefore, under such a state of facts, an action is not maintainable against the doctor." Hinkelman v. Wheeling Steel Corp., 114 W.Va. 269, 171 S.E. 538 (1933). 3. The so-called "dual capacity" or "dual persona " doctrine does not except a full-time, salaried doctor emplo......
  • Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • September 22, 1965
    ...Chalkley, 185 Va. 96, 38 S.E.2d 73 (1946); Washington, Peet v. Mills, 76 Wash. 437, 136 P. 685 (1913); West Virginia, Hinkelman v. Wheeling Steel Corp., 114 W.Va. 269, 171 S.E. 538 (1933), overruled in Tawney v. Kirkhart, 130 W.Va. 550, 44 S.E.2d 634 (1947), but the rule of Hinkelman restor......
  • Makarenko v. Scott
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • March 8, 1949
    ...538, and that action is relied on by the plaintiff in support of his contention that liability of the defendants exists in this case. The Hinkelman case held a company doctor, because his employer was a subscriber to the workmen's compensation fund, was protected by the workmen's compensati......
  • Schumacher v. Leslie
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • October 9, 1950
    ...Vilardo, 1948, 60 A.2d 94, 96[2-5], 26 N.J.Misc. 277; Makarenko v. Scott, W.Va.1949, 55 S.E.2d 88, 97[10, 11]; Hinkelman v. Wheeling Steel Corp., 1933, 114 W.Va. 269, 171 S.E. 538.2 Hancock v. Halliday, 1943, 65 Idaho 645, 150 P.2d 137, 149, 154 A.L.R. 295, 306; Pawlak v. Hayes, 1916, 162 W......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT