Lorenz v. Booth

• Decision Date: 23 March 1915
• Docket Number: 12261.
• Citation: 147 P. 31,84 Wash. 550
• Parties: LORENZ v. BOOTH.
• Court: Washington Supreme Court

147 P. 31

84 Wash. 550

LORENZ v. BOOTH.

No. 12261.

Supreme Court of Washington

March 23, 1915

Department 1. Appeal from Superior Court, King County; King Dykeman Judge.

Action by F. W. Lorenz against F. A. Booth. From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Brady &amp Rummens and T. B. Martin, all of Seattle, for appellant.

Ballinger Battle, Hulbert & Shorts and Peters & Powell, all of Seattle for respondent.

PARKER J.

The plaintiff seeks recovery of damages from the defendant, a practicing physician of Seattle, claimed to be the result of his negligence in the treatment of the plaintiff's broken leg. Upon the trial at the close of the evidence introduced on behalf of plaintiff, counsel for the defendant moved the court to withdraw the case from the jury and render judgment in his favor, upon the ground that the evidence introduced in the plaintiff's behalf was insufficient to call for the submission of the case to the jury. This motion was granted, and judgment rendered accordingly. From this disposition of the cause the plaintiff has appealed.

On January 4, 1910, appellant's left leg was accidentally broken. The injury consisted of a simple fracture of the tibia. There was at that time no outward evidence showing that the tibia was in fact broken; the skin and flesh being unbroken and the leg apparently in normal alignment. The respondent was called shortly thereafter to treat the injury, and upon examination discovered that the tibia was broken about four inches above the ankle. Respondent then set the broken bone and placed the leg in splints, it being necessary to place the appellant under an anaesthetic in so doing. Respondent then discussed with appellant and his wife the various methods of treating fractures of this nature, particularly as to reuniting and holding the broken ends of the bone in place while healing. Respondent advised that the broken bone be reunited by the so-called Lane method, consisting of opening the flesh and inserting and attaching to the broken portions of the bone a plate so as to rigidly hold them in apposition and alignment. Respondent advised this method of treatment in preference to other methods by which the bone is held in place by outward appliances without cutting the flesh, expressing the opinion that quicker and better results would follow. This method of treatment being consented to by appellant and his wife, they relying upon respondent's advice, upon the following day appellant was taken to the hospital, where the operation and the insertion of the plate securing the broken portions of the bone in place was performed and the leg placed in a cast. Appellant remained at the hospital six days. The evidence does not furnish any information as to what occurred at the hospital other than that the operation was performed. No details are shown throwing any light upon the manner of performance of the operation, nor as to the care or want of care there exercised relative to possible infection of the injured parts. Appellant was then taken home, when the respondent cut a hole in the cast so as to render the flesh wound accessible for treatment, and then it was first discovered that the injured parts had become seriously infected. The broken parts of the bone thereafter grew together without resetting, so that they are in good alignment and there is no shortening of the leg. In May, 1910, the plate was removed by the respondent, and because of the infection which still persisted, and with a view of overcoming it, respondent operated upon the leg again in August, 1910, and in January, 1911, otherwise treating it at intervals since the injury was received. Appellant, then being dissatisfied with the respondent's treatment, placed himself under the care of Dr. Gardner, who in treating the leg with the view of overcoming the infection operated upon it in June and October, 1911. None of these operations by respondent and Dr. Gardner involved the resetting of the broken bone; the first setting of it being followed by practically perfect results so far as alignment and maintaining the normal length of the leg is concerned. At the time of the trial the leg had practically regained its normal condition, except that it was not fully recovered as to its strength. Appellant was able to resume his usual work during only a portion of the time during the two years while being treated by respondent and Dr. Gardner. It is plain from the evidence that the only serious results to appellant, aside from the suffering and loss which would necessarily, in any event, flow from such an accident, is the infection which occurred, we assume, from some cause after the injury occurred.

Counsel for appellant proceed upon the theory that respondent was negligent in treating the broken bone by the adoption of the socalled Lane method, which required the opening of the flesh to the bone in order to attach the plate thereto, and that he was thereafter negligent in using unsterilized water and the vessel in which it was used to cleanse the injured parts when treating them. It is insisted that the evidence warrants the conclusion that the infection came from one or the other of these causes, and that neither the use of the Lane method nor the use of water in the vessel in its alleged unsterilized condition are recognized by the medical profession as proper treatment.

The only information furnished by this evidence as to the Lane method being an improper method of treatment of a fracture of this nature by the medical profession is that furnished by Dr. Gardner, the appellant's own physician. While he testified that the Lane method was probably not the best method of treatment of a fracture of this nature in the first instance, he testified, in part, relative to that method and its recognition by the medical profession, answering hypothetical questions of counsel describing this fracture, as follows:

'A. The first part of the question as to the reduction, I think the profession would be unanimous in reducing it and immobilizing it if possible, keeping it simple. If impossible to keep it simple and immobilize it, then we resort to the more radical means--we have authority for any means, and that is where the profession is split. At that time there was--I hardly know what word to use, but the journals were full of the introduction of the Lane plate at that time. The profession was so split that I can't tell you which predominated and which didn't. Later we don't believe that the Lane plate is universally used. Q. It was in an experimental state, do I understand, at that time? A. The only part of that that I don't believe, it may be--this isn't positive with me, but I don't believe the majority of the profession would have operated quite so early. I wouldn't have, but Dr. Booth had authority for so doing.

...