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

CourtSupreme Court of West Virginia
Writing for the CourtWOODS
Citation171 S.E. 538
PartiesHINKELMAN .v. WHEELING STEEL CORPORATION et al.
Docket NumberC. C. No. 481.
Decision Date31 October 1933

171 S.E. 538

HINKELMAN
.v.
WHEELING STEEL CORPORATION et al.

C. C. No. 481.

Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia.

Oct. 31, 1933.


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's

[171 S.E. 539]

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 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...

To continue reading

Request your trial
18 practice notes
  • Makarenko v. Scott, No. 10013.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 8, 1949
    ...In the Tawney case, however, this Court considered and overruled the case of Hinkelman v. Wheeling Steel Corporation, 114 W.Va. 269, 171 S.E. 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 c......
  • Deller v. Naymick, No. CC950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • November 21, 1985
    ...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 3. The so-called "dual capacity" or "dual persona " doctrine does not except a full-time, salaried doctor employed by a subscriber to the Workers' C......
  • Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co., CA-CIV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • September 22, 1965
    ...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 restored by Laws of 1949, Ch. 23, W.Va......
  • Smith v. Beard, 2159
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • February 18, 1941
    ...(Mass.) 160 N.E. 269; McDonough v. Association (Ore.) 294 P. 351; Williams v. Dale (Ore.) 8 P.2d 578; Hinkelman v. Wheeling Corp. (W. Va.) 171 S.E. 538; Sugar Co. v. Industrial Commission (Utah) 275 P. 777; Booth & Flinn v. Cook et al. (Okla.) 193 P. 36. The authorities cited by counsel for......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
18 cases
  • Makarenko v. Scott, No. 10013.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • March 8, 1949
    ...In the Tawney case, however, this Court considered and overruled the case of Hinkelman v. Wheeling Steel Corporation, 114 W.Va. 269, 171 S.E. 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 c......
  • Deller v. Naymick, No. CC950
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of West Virginia
    • November 21, 1985
    ...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 3. The so-called "dual capacity" or "dual persona " doctrine does not except a full-time, salaried doctor employed by a subscriber to the Workers' C......
  • Marquez v. Rapid Harvest Co., CA-CIV
    • United States
    • Court of Appeals of Arizona
    • September 22, 1965
    ...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 restored by Laws of 1949, Ch. 23, W.Va......
  • Smith v. Beard, 2159
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Wyoming
    • February 18, 1941
    ...(Mass.) 160 N.E. 269; McDonough v. Association (Ore.) 294 P. 351; Williams v. Dale (Ore.) 8 P.2d 578; Hinkelman v. Wheeling Corp. (W. Va.) 171 S.E. 538; Sugar Co. v. Industrial Commission (Utah) 275 P. 777; Booth & Flinn v. Cook et al. (Okla.) 193 P. 36. The authorities cited by counsel for......
  • 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