Jeffcoat v. Phillips
| Decision Date | 27 June 1967 |
| Docket Number | No. 7812,7812 |
| Citation | 417 S.W.2d 903 |
| Parties | C. E. JEFFCOAT et ux., Appellants, v. Dr. John R. PHILLIPS, Appellee. . Texarkana |
| Court | Texas Court of Appeals |
John H. Holloway, Nipper & Knox, Houston, for appellants.
W. N. Arnold, Jr., Fulbright, Crooker, Freeman, Bates & Jaworski, William L. Durham, Murfee & Hoover, Houston, for appellee.
C. E. Jeffcoat and wife, Mary Jeffcoat, sued Dr. John R. Phillips for alleged ordinary and gross negligence in the performance of surgery upon Mrs. Jeffcoat and for alleged unauthorized surgery on Mrs. Jeffcoat. A jury trial resulted in the submission of no negligence or gross negligence issues on Dr. Phillips and in a verdict in favor of defendant on answers to issues inquiring about unauthorized surgery. The damages issue was answered 'none'. Judgment was entered that plaintiffs take nothing. Plaintiffs have appealed.
Appellants have briefed their points 1 to 4 inclusive, together. These four points are lengthy and multifarious. Point One contends to the effect that the trial court erred in entering a take-nothing judgment based upon the jury finding to Special Issue 1 that defendant did not perform an operation for removal of veins of the legs of Mrs. Jeffcoat without her consent 'for the separately assigned errors' consisting of seven listed alleged errors. Point 2 contends to the effect that the trial court erred in entering judgment based upon the jury finding to Special Issue 4, that defendant did advise Mrs. Jeffcoat of the intended surgery for removal of the veins so as to permit her to elect to undergo such operation 'for the separately assigned errors', consisting of five listed alleged errors. Point 3 contends to the effect that the trial court erred in a take-nothing judgment based upon the jury's finding to Special Issue 5, whereby the jury found that the defendant reasonably and adequately warned Mrs. Jeffcoat that she might expect scarring on her legs from the operation 'for the separately assigned errors' consisting of four alleged errors. Point 4 contends to the effect that the trial court erred in entering a take-nothing judgment based upon the finding to Special Issue No. 7, that defendant informed Mrs. Jeffcoat that he would remove the ulcer from her right leg and strip and excise the varicose veins in her right leg, and if everything turned out well, he would strip and excise the veins in her left leg 'for the separately assigned errors', listing seven alleged errors.
While we think appellants' points One to Four, inclusive, are multifarious and are not in accordance with the briefing rules, nevertheless we have examined the points, statements, arguments and authorities listed thereunder, and will write upon what we understand to be some of appellants' main contentions under the numerous matters raised under said points, sub-points, and contentions.
Special Issues Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7 and the jury's answers thereto were as follows:
'SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 1
'Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that Dr. John R. Phillips performed an operation for removal of veins of the legs of Mrs. Mary Jeffcoat without her consent on January 24, 1962?
'To which the jury answered, 'We do not'.
'SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 4
'Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant, Dr. John R. Phillips, failed to advise the plaintiff, Mrs . Mary Jeffcoat, that the defendant intended to perform surgery upon her legs by cutting into her legs and removing the veins which he removed, at a time prior to the surgery so as to permit the plaintiff to elect whether she desired to undergo such proposed surgery for removal of the veins?
'To which the jury answered, 'We do not'.
'SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 5
'Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant, Dr. John R. Phillips, prior to the surgery of January 24, 1962, failed to reasonably and adequately warn Mrs. Mary Jeffcoat that she might reasonably expect scarring on her legs from such operation?
'To which the jury answered, 'We do not'.
'SPECIAL ISSUE NO. 7
'Do you find from a preponderance of the evidence that prior to the surgery in question the defendant, Dr. John R. Phillips, informed the plaintiff, Mrs. C. E. Jeffcoat, that he would remove the ulcer from her right leg and strip and excise the varicose veins in her right leg, and if everything turned out well, he would strip and excise the various veins in her left leg?
'To which the jury answered, 'We do'.'
As we view it, Special Issues Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7 presented to the jury the controlling questions on the issue of unauthorized surgery or failure to obtain informed consent from Mrs. Jeffcoat.
With respect to the 'no evidence questions' raised by appellant with respect to Issues Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7, they are overruled. The testimony of defendant Doctor Phillips constitutes some evidence of probative force. According to his testimony he fully explained to Mrs. Jeffcoat about the operations which were eventually performed, that this information was discussed with her several days before surgery, that he told Mrs. Jeffcoat specifically about the necessity for making incisions in large troublesome veins; that Mrs. Jeffcoat checked into the hospital after being previously given full information of the intended operations by Dr. Phillips, that she had been reasonably warned and adequately by the discussion in question about the likelihood of the scarring of her legs, and Dr. Phillips further testified to the effect that the operations which were performed had been fully explained to Mrs. Jeffcoat by him.
There was also written evidence of the consent of Mrs. Jeffcoat to the surgery in question consisting of an authorization signed by Mrs . Jeffcoat specifically authorizing a bilateral vein ligation, together with such necessary and closely connected surgical procedures as would be caused in the course of the operation.
If appellee's testimony is to be believed, he proved bothoral and written consent on the part of Mrs. Jeffcoat to the operations in question, as well as full informed consent by his oral testimony. The jury was the judge of the credibility of the witnesses and of the weight to be given their testimony, and the jury apparently believed Dr. Phillips' testimony with respect to the matters in dispute with reference to Issues 1, 4, 5 and 7, and Dr. Phillips' testimony constituted some evidence of probative force. Furthermore, the burden of proof on Special Issues Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7 was on plaintiffs. We hold that there was evidence of probative force to support the jury's findings to Special Issues Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7, and that the same was sufficient.
Appellants also contend to the effect that the findings of the jury to Special Issues Nos. 1, 4, 5 and 7 were so contrary to the great weight and preponderance of the evidence as to be clearly wrong and manifestly unjust. In considering these contentions we have examined the entire record in this cause in the light of the rules enunciated by ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Jeffcoat v. Phillips
...Goodnight v. Phillips, 418 S.W.2d 862 (Tex.Civ.App.-Houston (1st Dist.) 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Jeffcoat v. Phillips, 417 S.W.2d 903 (Tex.Civ.App.-Texarkana 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.). Appellant's other complaints are not likely to occur at the next trial, and thus need not be further consi......
-
Hood v. Phillips
...367 (Tex.Civ.App. Houston (14th Dist.)), writ ref'd n. r. e. per curiam, 510 S.W.2d 90 (Tex.1974); Jeffcoat v. Phillips, 417 S.W.2d 903 (Tex.Civ.App. Texarkana 1967, writ ref'd n. r. e.). Other courts have also held it proper to submit the issue of gross negligence to a jury in a medical ma......
-
Dubreuil, In re
...Beck v. Lovell, 361 So.2d 245, 250 (La.Ct.App.1978); Murray v. Vandevander, 522 P.2d 302, 303 (Okla.Ct.App.1974); Jeffcoat v. Phillips, 417 S.W.2d 903, 907 (Tex.Civ.App.1967). The hospital had no right to rely on the consent of the husband when it was contrary to the conscious decision of M......
-
St. Paul Medical Center v. Cecil
...1973, no writ) (failure to correct improper closing of incision resulting in ventricle hernia); Jeffcoat v. Phillips, 417 S.W.2d 903 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1967, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (performance of surgery). We note that these cases involve the performance of medical procedures by doctors.......