Hollis v. Ahlquist

• Decision Date: 08 January 1927
• Docket Number: 20146.
• Citation: 142 Wash. 33,251 P. 871
• Parties: HOLLIS v. AHLQUIST et ux.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

251 P. 871

142 Wash. 33

HOLLIS v. AHLQUIST et ux.

No. 20146.

Supreme Court of Washington

January 8, 1927

Department 2.

Appeal from Superior Court, Spokane County; Carey, Judge.

Action by Ira B. Hollis against T. M. Ahlquist and wife. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Kimball & Blake, of Spokane, for appellant.

Cannon & McKevitt, of Spokane, for respondents.

ASKREN J.

This appeal is from a judgment of the trial court, entered upon a directed verdict in favor of the defendant, in an action for damages based on malpractice.

The appellant, a farmer, 51 years of age, fell from a load of hay causing an oblique fracture of the large bone, or tibia, of the left leg at a point three or four inches below the knee. He was taken to a Spokane hospital, where the respondent was called to treat the leg. The leg was manipulated in an endeavor to place the bones in a correct position, examined through a fluoroscope, and X-rayed. The X-ray indicated a perfect alignment as well as apposition of the bones. A temporary cast known as the 'Thomas splint' was then put on the leg. After several days the swelling began to subside and a plaster cast was put on. About 48 hours afterward an X-ray was taken which showed that, while there was perfect alignment of the bones, there was not perfect apposition, since the bones overlapped about a quarter of an inch. The respondent considered whether it would be advisable to attempt to reset the leg by forcing apposition, or to allow nature to heal in its own way expecting apposition to result as the swelling subsided, and the muscles relaxed. It was decided to allow nature to proceed.

A bleb characterized by the doctors as a blood blister, caused by the original fracture and pressure upon the soft tissues of the leg, becoming painful, the cast was split and the fluid in the bleb drawn off. The appellant then went home and was attended thereafter by another doctor. Later this suit was brought, claiming a permanent injury to the leg.

Upon the trial, the question of negligence offered by the appellant was based upon the fact that, since the X-ray picture taken when appellant first came to the hospital showed what appeared to be perfect alignment and apposition of the broken bone, then any result thereafter which did not indicate the same result must of necessity be the result of unskillful work upon the part of the doctor. No evidence of any kind was offered indicating in the remotest degree that the treatment given the injured member was not the approved and customary method sanctioned by the medical profession nor was there anything from which even a lay member could surmise a wrong method of treatment, unless it be that because appellant testified that his leg was not in as good condition thereafter as might be expected negligence in the treatment must follow as a matter of course. Counsel for appellant have argued that, since the first X-ray showed a perfect result after the appellant had been brought to the Spokane...