Mims v. Ragland
| Decision Date | 17 March 1939 |
| Docket Number | 27201. |
| Citation | 2 S.E.2d 174,59 Ga.App. 703 |
| Parties | MIMS v. RAGLAND. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Duke Davis and L. L. Meadors, both of La Grange, for plaintiff in error.
No appearance for defendant in error.
Wallace Ragland sued R. D. Mims, alleging in the petition that the defendant professed to practice surgery and the administering of medicine, holding himself out to the public as a doctor, that the defendant put in a newspaper an advertisement that he removed hemorrhoids in a manner that is painless, bloodless and drugless, that the plaintiff went to the defendant for examination, that the defendant took the case and guaranteed that he would cure the plaintiff as per the advertisement for $25, that afterwards the defendant began treating the plaintiff using some kind of medicine by injecting it with a hypodermic needle, that the defendant thereafter performed an operation on the plaintiff by cutting with a safety razor blade, without sterilizing the blade and without the use of reasonable care and skill in preventing an infection, and that after this operation the plaintiff had several hemorrhages and that the plaintiff was forced to call in a doctor who had to remove him to a hospital where he remained for ten days at a cost of $32.50, that the plaintiff underwent intense pain and suffering on account of the defendant failing to exercise a reasonable degree of care and skill in the performance of the operation, that he suffered abscesses from the failure to use properly sterilized instruments in performing the operation, that the plaintiff was totally disabled to work at any hard labor and will be forever disabled, that the plaintiff was earning $15 a week and lost ten weeks of time on account of improper treatment by the defendant and the improper exercise of a reasonable degree of skill and care by the defendant in operating on him, that the plaintiff suffered actual damage in the sum of $308.50, and suffered $10,000 in general damages.
In his answer the defendant admitted that he had advertised as alleged, that he accepted the plaintiff as a patient, that the plaintiff had paid him approximately $25. Other allegations in the petition were denied. The defendant further alleged that he was a licensed chiropractor in LaGrange, that the plaintiff came to him for treatment, and the defendant instructed the plaintiff that it would be necessary for the plaintiff to follow the defendant's instructions strictly in order to obtain the benefit of the treatments, one of the main instructions being that the plaintiff stop work and rest quietly during the period of treatment, but that the plaintiff did not rest quietly as he had been instructed to do, that another main requirement was that the plaintiff remain in the city of LaGrange where an electrical current would be available for use in the treatment, that the plaintiff agreed to do this, but later went to his home in the country where no electrical current was available, and refused to remain in the city, that only one injection was used and that was done under the immediate supervision and direction of a practicing medical doctor of LaGrange, that the plaintiff had completely recovered and was not seriously or permanently injured, and that he, the defendant, did not any time or in any way do anything which was not proper to be done.
After hearing considerable evidence the jury found in favor of the plaintiff in the sum of $278.50. The defendant moved for a new trial on the general grounds, and on a number of special grounds. The motion was overruled by the court. The overruling of this motion was excepted to and assigned as error by the defendant.
1. The evidence was quite conflicting. There was testimony that the defendant had used an unsterilized safety razor blade in operating on the plaintiff. This was denied by the defendant in his testimony. There was testimony that the defendant had given the plaintiff a number of injections. This was denied by the defendant, but he admitted that he had given one injection at the instance of a physician who had been called in to the case. The evidence was uncontradicted that one of the physicians who was called in gave an injection, told the defendant what to do in treating the case, which directions he afterwards followed, and that later on the plaintiff's condition became such that another physician was called in and had the plaintiff carried to a hospital where he remained under treatment of the latter physician for 10 days, that the defendant gave the plaintiff no further treatment after the plaintiff was taken to the hospital, and that the portions of the plaintiff's body which had been under treatment were badly infected when he reached the hospital. The details of the evidence need not be further stated. It was sufficient to authorize the verdict.
Where one witness testified...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Gaines v. Wolcott
...and skill, set out in Code § 84-924, is applicable to a chiropractor who performs acts usually done by a surgeon. Mims v. Ragland, 59 Ga.App. 703, 706(3), 2 S.E.2d 174; Andrews v. Lofton, 80 Ga.App. 723, 57 S.E.2d 338. Ordinarily, the question of whether such care and skill were used is for......
-
Sandford v. Howard
...confined to the testimony of the defendant's school of practice. See Kahn v. Shaw, 65 Ga.App. 563, 568, 16 S.E.2d 99; Mims v. Ragland, 59 Ga.App. 703(7), 2 S.E.2d 174. In Kahn, a malpractice case against an optometrist, an eye specialist was permitted to testify concerning the proper method......
- Cobb v. State