King v. Belmore

• Decision Date: 01 March 1924
• Citation: 248 Mass. 108,142 N.E. 911
• Parties: KING v. BELMORE.
• Court: United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court

248 Mass. 108

142 N.E. 911

KING

v.BELMORE.

Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, Plymouth.

March 1, 1924.

Exceptions from Superior Court, Plymouth County; Joseph Walsh, Judge.

Action of tort by Edward King against Adelore O. Belmore. Verdict for plaintiff, and defendant brings exceptions. Exceptions sustained.W. G. Rowe, of Brockton, for plaintiff.

F. G. Katzman, of Hyde Park, and J. P. Vahey and R. Clapp, both of Boston, for defendant.

CROSBY, J.

This is an action of tort against the defendant, a physician and surgeon, for malpractice in treating the plaintiff for an injury resulting from being run down by a motorcycle.

Immediately after the accident, which occurred on November 6, 1918, the plaintiff was taken to the defendant's office. The defendant examined him and found an open wound on the calf of the right leg; he dressed the wound and thereafter attended him on different days until November 16, 1918; and two days later he was dismissed from the case by the plaintiff. Dr. Hunt, another physician, was then called, who treated the plaintiff until March 5, 1919, when he was removed to a hospital and there, on April 19 following, his right leg was amputated at a point six inches below the hip.

There was evidence tending to show that the cut or wound had become infected or septic; and that pus had formed above the wound and discharged through it. Dr. Hunt testified that the proper treatment for such an injury would be for the attending physician to wash off all possible cause of infection by the use of a corrosive or bichloride solution; to open and clean the edges of a wound such as the plaintiff had received, and clean the open parts with gauze dipped in such solution, following which to suture the wound with stitches; that after it had been cleaned to apply an iodoform gauze bandage, and assuming that the plaintiff had lost considerable blood to apply absorbent cotton next outside the iodoform gauze and place outside the absorbent cotton a bandage of aseptic surgical gauze. He further testified that while pus is not always possible to detect until several days after an open wound has been received, that the most common period for its appearance is from three to eight days following the receipt of a street injury, and that--

‘Generally after an accident a physician would know whether pus had come or not within about three days.’

This witness also testified that--

‘When pus forms an avenue of escape should be open; if there is a wound you separate the edges of the wound. * * * Drainage should be established. If there is no evacuation, septic absorption follows, which may cause septicemia and ultimate death. Usually the development of pus causes an increase in temperature.’

Dr. Bassett testified that he was chief of the surgical service of the Brokton Hospital; that he ‘would expect infection introduced in a wound to manifest itself inside of a very short period, three or four days.’ There was evidence that the defendant did not place a drain in the wound; that he put a white powder on it; that he never took the plaintiff's temperature; that in the afternoon of November 16, after the defendant saw the plaintiff for the last time, about a cup of pus came from the wound under the bandage.

Dr. Hunt testified that he first visited the plaintiff on November 18, 1918; that he was emaciated; that he took his temperature and found that he had a fever; that he removed what seemed to be a strip of sheeting from his leg; that there was no iodoform bandage there; that there was a scab underneath the sheeting, and evidence of the application of a white powder; that he removed the scab and found the edges of a small wound somewhat glued together; that he pulled the edges apart and there was a very profuse discharge of pus. He further testified as follows:

‘I found on the outer side of the lower third of the thigh a bulged condition which fluctuated on pressure, and which appeared to be a well of pus, which discharged through the wound below, when the wound was open. * * * I established drainage of the pus, tilted the leg down and propped the patient up in bed. The pus soaked all the clothes we had in the bed, through the sheets and onto the mattress. From the emaciated condition of the patient and the amount of pus I should say the pus condition was eight or ten days old. There was no drain in the wound, I inserted a drain and put on a wet dressing with a weak lysol solution. The scab covered the wound. The evacuation of the pus eased the plaintiff's pain; pus under pressure causes pain, and there was pressure there.’

There was further medical evidence to the effect that sepsis might have been caused by contamination of the wound after the accident, by faulty method and care in the way of infected bandages or instruments, or unskillfulness of any kind. Dr. Packard, another witness called by the plaintiff, testified that ‘pus takes three or...