Hinkelman v. Wheeling Steel Corp., C. C. No. 481.

Decision Date31 October 1933
Docket NumberC. C. No. 481.
Citation171 S.E. 538
CourtWest Virginia Supreme Court

Syllabus by the Court.

If a doctor, who is employed by a subscriber to the workmen's compensation fund to render medical and surgical aid and treatment of its employees, is so unskillful 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 Hinkelman against the Wheeling Steel Corporation and another. The circuit court overruled a demurrer to the declaration, and certified its rulings for review.

Ruling reversed, and the demurrer sustained.

Martin Brown, of Moundsville, for plaintiff.

Erskine, Palmer & Curl, of Wheeling, for defendants.

WOODS, Judge.

The purpose of this certificate is to determine the correctness of the trial court'saction 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 unskillful 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 treatment; that the doctor became bound to carefully and skillfully 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 unskillfully 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 save 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 unskillful...

To continue reading

Request your trial
21 cases
  • Deller v. Naymick
    • United States
    • West Virginia Supreme Court
    • November 21, 1985
    ... ... [his or her] employer[.]" West Virginia Coal & Coke Corp. v. State Compensation Commissioner, 116 W.Va. 701, 704, ... action is not maintainable against the doctor." Hinkelman v. Wheeling Steel Corp., 114 W.Va. 269, 171 S.E. 538 ... ...
  • Smith v. Beard
    • United States
    • Wyoming Supreme Court
    • February 18, 1941
    ... ... 351; ... Williams v. Dale (Ore.) 8 P.2d 578; Hinkelman v ... Wheeling Corp. (W. Va.) 171 S.E. 538; Sugar Co ... ...
  • Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co.
    • United States
    • Arizona Court of Appeals
    • September 22, 1965
    ... ... 60, 70, 223 P.2d 808 (1950); Goodyear Aircraft Corp. v. Industrial Commission, 62 Ariz. 398, 407, 158 P.2d 511 ... 437, 136 P. 685 (1913); West Virginia, Hinkelman v. Wheeling Steel Corp., 114 W.Va. 269, 171 S.E. 538 ... ...
  • Hanson v. Norton
    • United States
    • Missouri Supreme Court
    • March 17, 1937
    ... ... 411; Markley v. White, 32 P.2d 716; Hinkelman v ... Steel Corp., 171 S.E. 538 ... ...
  • 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