Meisenheimer v. Kellogg

• Court: Wisconsin Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: WINSLOW
• Citation: Meisenheimer v. Kellogg, 106 Wis. 30, 81 N.W. 1033 (Wis. 1900)
• Decision Date: 27 February 1900
• Parties: MEISENHEIMER v. KELLOGG.

106 Wis. 30

81 N.W. 1033

MEISENHEIMER

v.KELLOGG.

Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Feb. 27, 1900.

Appeal from superior court, Milwaukee county; J. C. Ludwig, Judge.

Action by Peter J. Meisenheimer against E. Wells Kellogg. From a judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action to recover damages for malpractice. The complaint alleges, in substance, that on and prior to the 23d day of August, 1897, the defendant was a physician and surgeon duly licensed to practice as such in the state of Wisconsin, and engaged in the practice of his profession in the city of Milwaukee, and that he held himself out to the public as a skillful physician and surgeon; that on or about the 23d of August, 1897, the plaintiff employed the defendant as such physician and surgeon, for a compensation thereafter to be paid, to treat plaintiff's left wrist joint, which was then swollen and painful, and that he submitted said wrist joint to the defendant for examination and treatment, and that the defendant did then examine and undertake to treat said wrist joint for the purpose of curing said ailment; that in the course of such treatment the defendant used and placed upon such wrist joint certain corrosive substances, medicines, and drugs, which destroyed the skin and tissues and a portion of the muscles; that said treatment was of no use or benefit, and was not proper treatment, but was negligent and careless treatment, and not in accord with the rules of any school of medicine or surgery; that the said drugs and medicines were highly deleterious, dangerous, and improper drugs and medicines to use upon said wrist, and were such drugs and medicines as physicians possessed of ordinary learning and skill, practicing in this vicinity, would not have used and employed in treating said ailment; that the defendant continued to treat said wrist from the 23d day of August until about the 10th day of November, 1897, but did not treat the same as frequently or in such a manner as the same ought to have been treated, or would have been treated by physicians possessing ordinary skill, residing in said vicinity; that because of the destruction of said skin, tissues, and muscles, caused by said unskillful and negligent treatment, the plaintiff has suffered much pain and suffering, and has been put to much unnecessary expense to effect a cure for said wrist, and has suffered a permanent injury to said wrist and to his left hand and arm which has rendered him incapable of following his trade or doing any kind of work whereby the plaintiff has suffered damage in the amount of $10,000; that on the 7th day of July, 1898, the plaintiff caused a notice in writing to be served on the defendant, stating the time and place where such damage occurred, and the manner in which said injuries were received, and the grounds upon which the claim was made, and that satisfaction thereof was claimed of the defendant. A copy of said notice so alleged to have been served was attached to, and made a part of, the complaint. The defendant demurred to the complaint on three grounds: (1) That the court had no jurisdiction of the subject of the action; (2) that several causes of action have been improperly united; and (3) that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was overruled, and the defendant appeals.

Geo. L....