Lince v. Monson

Decision Date26 April 1961
Docket Number32,Nos. 31,s. 31
Citation363 Mich. 135,108 N.W.2d 845
PartiesHarvey LINCE, Plaintiff, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Robert C. MONSON, James W. Sinclair, individually and as copartners d/b/a Monson & Sinclair jointly and severally, Defendants, Appellees and Cross-Appellants. Mary Anne LINCE, Plaintiff, Appellant and Cross-Appellee, v. Robert C. MONSON, James W. Sinclair, individually and as copartners d/b/a Monson & Sinclair jointly and severally, Defendants, Appellees and Cross-Appellants.
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

Paul G. Bogos, Detroit (Robert W. Kefgen, Detroit, of counsel), for plaintiffs and appellants.

Moll, Desenberg, Purdy & Glover, Detroit (Richard A. Kitch, Detroit, of counsel), for defendants and appellees.

Before the Entire Bench.

DETHMERS, Chief Justice.

Plaintiffs, husband and wife, sue defendant doctors for alleged malpractice in their professional treatment of plaintiff wife, hereinafter called the plaintiff. Appeal is from judgment non obstante veredicto for defendants.

On February 14, 1957, defendants performed a right oophorectomy, being the removal of the plaintiff's right ovary, which had become cystic, and lysis or freeing of certain abdominal adhesions. On May 1, 1957, defendants again performed surgery on the plaintiff for lysis of bowel adhesions and relief of bowel obstruction. They freed adhesions between bowels and the uterus and other adhesions which were binding down the small bowel in both the right and left quadrants in the cul-de-sac. Defendant Monson, who performed the surgery, assisted by defendant Sinclair, testified that all this was done with great difficulty and took quite a bit of time because there were so many adhesions; that they also found small areas of endometriosis on the left side of the abdomen attached to the sigmoid, the abdominal wall, the bowels and the uterus, all of which he freed, and in the cul-de-sac a tremendous amount of endometriosis, probably the size of a hand, half an inch or more thick, which he freed. He described endometriosis as a condition in which endometrial tissue or lining of the uterus escapes the womb into an area where it is not normally present, testifying that wherever it touches it attaches and spreads like cancer, its cells growing wildly, that it looks somewhat like a sponge, is very vascular and friable, fragile and difficult to handle and bleeds profusely, and that a stitch cuts right through it like it would through butter. He further testified that it is customary, in seeing anything abnormal like this during surgery, to take a sample for laboratory analysis and check for possible malignancy; that as they took a small piece of the endometriosis profuse bleeding ensued; that they had to pack the bleeding and put stitches in it to try to stop the bleeding; that they had to put the stitches in deep into the endometriosis in an effort to make them hold and stop the bleeding; that the large quantity of endometriosis and blood obliterated the landmarks, so that it was impossible to see anything around while stitching; that the blood was just welling up and it was necessary to act with speed to prevent further hemorrhaging; that at one time they feared they were not going to be able to control the hemorrhage; that they were able to pack it just enough so they could put in a stitch and keep on going that way and so complete the operation. An expert medical witness testified that, under such circumstances, this has to be done to save the patient's life.

During the next few weeks plaintiff received treatments for small bowel obstruction. On June 13, 1957, a different doctor operated on plaintiff. He testified that he then found that plaintiff's right ureter had become involved with a chromic catgut suture and was blocked; that this had caused a leakage of urine from that ureter which had formed a large cystic mass containing urine. He removed the cyst and repaired the ureter. He further testified that the injury to the ureter could have occurred during either the February or May, 1957, operations by defendants. The jury found that it did happen in the May operation.

All medical testimony was that the ureter is not the subject matter of the kind of operations performed by defendants in February or May, and that in such operations it is not standard practice to suture the ureter. Defendant Monson testified that he had not, to his knowledge, placed a suture around the ureter, but that it frequently happens when surgery is performed in that area and when the landmarks are so obliterated by excessive bleeding that the surgeon does not realize that the ureter is around there. Defendant Sinclair testified that the suturing done by defendants was not done near where the ureter normally is located; that when the hemorrhaging began and blood obscured the whole operative field, they applied packs, but, because of the friability of the endometriosis, they felt it was inadvisable to clamp it or put a tie on it because the tie would cut right through it, so, instead, they put a suture around the area which was bleeding and put a tie in that position, immediately stopping the bleeding. Expert medical testimony was that the existence of the mass of endometriosis, especially in an area where previous surgery had occurred, could displace organs or structures such as the ureter from normal position; also, that, where structures are obliterated by bleeding, as here, it would be foolhardy to make further dissections of the mass and create further bleeding in order to identify structures not in view. The record, read in context, does not support the statement in plaintiff's brief that expert medical testimony was to the effect that the right ureter was not in the vicinity of the endometriosis which defendants were suturing. On the contrary, expert medical testimony was that the ureter must have been in the immediate neighborhood of the endometriosis mass. An expert medical witness testified, in response to the hypothetical question based on the assumption of the existence of the facts as described by the testimony on both sides of the case, that defendants 'used the usual and ordinary practice in the handling of this case' and that the evidence of injury by suture to the ureter was hot evidence of improper practice nor was there anything unusual in such occurrence; further, that insertion of a catheter into the ureter, under the circumstances of this case and because of the endometriosis mass, would not have enabled defendants to ascertain that a suture had entered the right ureter.

There was no medical testimony that defendants' treatment and handling of the case was not in accord with standard and usual practice of skilled doctors in the community.

In the ordinary negligence case a question is presented whether an ordinary, careful and prudent person would have done as defendant did under the circumstances. Presumably a jury of 12 persons, drawn from and representing a cross section of the community, is competent to judge that question, on the basis of its own knowledge and experience, and to determine negligence or freedom therefrom accordingly. Sometimes, in such cases, a problem presented is whether the question of defendant's negligence is...

To continue reading

Request your trial
59 cases
  • Siirila v. Barrios, 11
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • December 21, 1976
    ...801 (1975). The Court held, first, that as an intermediate appellate court, they were bound by the standard of Lince v. Monson, 363 Mich. 135, 142--143, 108 N.W.2d 845 (1961), that there be expert testimony as to the defendant physician's compliance with professional standards and practice ......
  • Peters v. Michigan Bell Telephone Co., Docket Nos. 71928
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • November 22, 1985
    ...was careless and not conformable to the standards of professional practice and care employed in the community." Lince v. Monson, 363 Mich. 135, 140-141, 108 N.W.2d 845 (1961). Similarly, there is the possibility that a mental disability may be so clearly manifest that it could be establishe......
  • Wilson v. Stilwill, Docket No. 63782
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Michigan
    • September 1, 1981
    ...case involving a physician or dentist, expert testimony would be required to establish the standard. See, e. g., Lince v. Monson, 363 Mich. 135, 108 N.W.2d 845 (1961); Roberts v. Young, 369 Mich. 133, 119 N.W.2d 627 (1963); Wrobel v. Cotman, 372 Mich. 383, 126 N.W.2d 723 (1964). Similarly, ......
  • Stiver v. Parker, 90-1624
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (6th Circuit)
    • December 21, 1992
    ...standard of care, a requirement under Michigan law for a medical or legal malpractice case to go to the jury. Lince v. Monson, 363 Mich. 135, 108 N.W.2d 845, 847-48 (1961) (stating that "the plaintiff must produce medical testimony to the effect that what the attending physician or surgeon ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT