Jaeger v. Stratton

• Decision Date: 10 February 1920
• Citation: 176 N.W. 61,170 Wis. 579
• Parties: JAEGER v. STRATTON (TWO CASES).
• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court

170 Wis. 579

176 N.W. 61

JAEGER

v.STRATTON (TWO CASES).

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 10, 1920.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Milwaukee County; John J. Gregory, Judge.

Action by William J. Jaeger and by his wife, Helena Jaeger, against Frederick A. Stratton for malpractice were consolidated and tried as one. Directed verdict and judgment for defendant, and plaintiffs appeal. Affirmed.

Actions for malpractice. The defendant performed an operation upon Helena Jaeger, the wife of William Jaeger. It is claimed that by reason of a negligent diagnosis and the performance of an unnecessary operation Helena Jaeger was caused long-continued pain and suffering and rendered unable to perform her customary work. The husband sued for medical expenses, loss of service, etc., and the wife for pain and suffering. By stipulation the actions were consolidated and tried as one. At the close of the evidence the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendant, and from a judgment entered accordingly the plaintiffs appealed.Rubin, Fawcett & Dutcher, of Milwaukee (W. B. Rubin and C. F. Rouiller, both of Milwaukee, of counsel), for appellants.

Lines, Spooner & Quarles, of Milwaukee, for respondent.

VINJE, J.

[1] The plaintiff Helena Jaeger at the time she was examined by the defendant, February 26, 1918, had borne nine children. Her menses had ceased at Christmas, 1917, and she feared she might be pregnant. She suffered from headache, gas in the stomache, and severe bearing down pains in the lower abdomen. She had not had such pains in her former pregnancies, and so became alarmed and consulted a Dr. Walters, who did not definitely diagnose her condition, but suggested pregnancy, a tumor or inflammation of the appendix, and advised her to come back in a couple of months. Instead of doing so she went to the defendant, who found a serious inflammatory condition with pain and tenderness in the lower abdomen. The uterus was somewhat enlarged, and there appeared to be an inflammatory mass in the broad ligament. The defendant diagnosed the latter as the chief cause of the trouble, though he thought it might be appendicitis, or possibly pregnancy. He advised an operation. She said she did not want to be operated upon if she was pregnant. He told her he thought she was not. She consented to an operation and told him to remove the appendix when he took out the tumor.

The operation disclosed that she was about 2 1/2 months pregnant, and that she had an inflamed appendix covered with a Jackson's membrane. The appendix was removed, and she made a normal recovery, and in time gave birth to a living and healthy child.

The medical testimony showed without dispute that the failure to accurately diagnose her condition was due neither to lack of care, skill, nor judgment; that under the conditions as they appeared an early operation was advisable; that the operation was skillfully performed; that she made a normal recovery, and was relieved from a menace that might have resulted very seriously during later pregnancy by having to have the inflamed appendix removed. In view of such testimony the...