Lince v. Monson, s. 31

• Court: Supreme Court of Michigan
• Citation: 363 Mich. 135,108 N.W.2d 845
• Docket Number: 32,Nos. 31,s. 31
• Parties: Harvey 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.
• Decision Date: 26 April 1961

Page 845

108 N.W.2d 845 363 Mich. 135 Harvey 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. Nos. 31, 32. Supreme Court of Michigan. April 26, 1961.

[363 Mich. 136]

Page 846

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. [363 Mich. 137] 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 [363 Mich. 138] 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

Page 847

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...