Jett v. Linville

• Decision Date: 22 February 1924
• Citation: 259 S.W. 43,202 Ky. 198
• Parties: JETT v. LINVILLE.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

259 S.W. 43

202 Ky. 198

JETT v. LINVILLE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

February 22, 1924

Appeal from Circuit Court, Kenton County.

Action by Jeannie Linville against N. A. Jett. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Northcutt & Northcutt and O. M. Rogers, all of Covington, for appellant.

A. E Stricklett, of Covington, for appellee.

ROBINSON J.

During the first part of December, 1919, the appellant, Dr. N. A. Jett, of Covington, Ky. was called to the home of appellee Jeannie Linville, who claimed to be suffering from excessive menstruation that dated back to the month of October. She alleged that the flow occurred every two or three days, and as a result she was frequently confined to her bed. Dr. Jett was in constant attendance upon her, visiting her home and prescribing such remedies as are usually employed in cases of this nature. However, her condition did not respond to the treatment, and on January 18, 1920, he called in Dr. Joseph Northcutt, who--after making a digital examination--indorsed the treatment that she had been receiving, and further advised rest and the elevation of the foot of her bed; and stated that, if this failed to afford relief, he deemed an operation necessary.

On January 23d, five days later, as appellee's condition remained unchanged, Dr. Edward Northcutt, a surgeon, was called. He made an examination of Mrs. Linville, known as the bimanual test, consisting of inserting two fingers into the vagina, the other hand being placed on the abdomen; and it was discovered that blood was flowing from the uterus and escaping through the vagina. Owing to this condition that had existed almost continuously since the latter part of October 1919, Mrs. Linville was pale, anæmic, and weak, owing to the loss of blood, and was confined the greater part of the time to her bed. Instead of improving, she gradually grew worse; though at all times both the doctors Northcutt entirely approved of the treatment given by Dr. Jett, which, though of the latest known and designed to correct conditions of this kind, nevertheless failed to afford the desired relief; and Dr. Edward Northcutt advised an immediate operation. In addition to the discharge above described, the surgeons discovered upon examination that the mouth of the womb was standing open, while the womb itself was retroverted; that is, the upper portion or uterus was turned toward the backbone and had fallen into the hollow of the sacrum, and was immovable owing to adhesions and newly formed tissue. In this retroverted position the surgeons stated that any attempt to restore the uterus to its normal place through bimanual manipulations would result in a hemorrhage; and the only safe course by which a cure could be expected was a laparotomy--an operation by means of which the abdomen is opened, the adhesions destroyed, and the uterus restored to its normal position.

During the time appellee was being treated and before the operation the physicians suspected that she might be in a pregnant condition; and advised that, should this be a fact, curetment or packing of the uterus, both of which are sometimes resorted to in an endeavor to prevent flooding or excessive bleeding, would cause an abortion; and for that reason it was not deemed wise or safe to resort to either of these methods. It appears further that on January 27th appellee was taken to the Booth Memorial Hospital, where, on January 28th, an operation was performed by the surgeons Northcutt; and they discovered the retroverted uterus bound down, just as they had predicted; and it was further found that she was in a state of pregnancy of about three months' duration. It is further testified that the adhesions by reason of which the uterus had remained in its unnatural condition were destroyed, and the womb lifted from its abnormal position and proper treatment applied to support and cause it to remain in its place. During the operation the evidence discloses that the surgeons as a precautionary measure, and to prevent the secretions from escaping into the abdominal cavity, and thereby causing infection, placed gauze in the vagina in order to absorb the secretions and to support the cervix of the uterus during the work. But before inserting the gauze, a stitch was taken in the mouth of the cervix for the purpose of closing it and preventing the escape of any secretions from the uterus, or the entrance of infectious matter into it, being also an additional precautionary measure employed to prevent the development of infection from the operation. It is further claimed that after the stitch was taken in the cervix of the uterus the gauze was placed in the vagina in front of the stitch and between it and the surgeon; and that after the operation was concluded, the gauze was removed and the stitch taken out of the cervix...