Moeller v. Hauser

• Decision Date: 01 August 1952
• Docket Number: Nos. 35676--35680,s. 35676--35680
• Citation: 54 N.W.2d 639,237 Minn. 368
• Parties: , 57 A.L.R.2d 364 MOELLER et al. v. HAUSER et al. MOELLER v. LOFQUIST et al., Welfare Board of Ramsey County.
• Court: Minnesota Supreme Court

Page 639

54 N.W.2d 639

237 Minn. 368, 57 A.L.R.2d 364

MOELLER et al. v. HAUSER et al.

MOELLER v. LOFQUIST et al., Welfare Board of Ramsey County.

Nos. 35676--35680.

Supreme Court of Minnesota.

Aug. 1, 1952.

Syllabus by the Court.

1(a) In an examination of the record to determine whether a finding of negligence is supported by the evidence, it is necessary to examine the evidence in the light most favorable to the prevailing party.

(b) It is well-settled law that a physician or surgeon is not an insurer of a cure or a good result of his treatment or operation. He is only required to possess the skill and learning possessed by the average member of his school of the profession in good standing in his locality and to exercise that skill and learning with due care.

(c) All that is required of a court in its instruction is to convey to the jury a clear and correct understanding of a law of the case as it pertains to all the parties involved. Held that the finding of negligence against Dr. F. is sufficiently supported by the evidence.

2. It is well established in this state that a hospital, private or charitable, is liable to a patient for the torts of its employes under the doctrine of Respondeat superior. A resident doctor in a hospital who receives his compensation from the hospital while providing medical care as a part of regular hospital routine is an employe of the hospital so as to make the hospital liable for his negligence under the doctrine of Respondeat superior.

3(a) It cannot be said as a matter of law that an attending doctor has no duty to call on a patient merely because he is receiving care in a hospital. The question for the jury is whether the doctor used the degree of skill, care, and vigilance which the average doctor in good standing in the locality would have used under the circumstances.

(b) A review of the court's charge disclosed no error in connection with its summary of the claims of plaintiffs and the claims of defendants which would justify a reversal on the theory that the jury was led to believe that it could find that the doctor had to sign a written order before the patient would be released from the hospital or answer in damages. Neither do we consider that the rules and regulations of the medical staff were used by the court in its instructions in such a manner as to impose legal obligations on the doctor which the law would not otherwise impose, inasmuch as it appears that the instructions clearly set out the standard of care required of doctors.

(c) Where it appears from an examination of the trial court's instruction that the question of liability of a staff doctor in a hospital was made to depend upon a finding of negligence of the staff doctor himself and not upon the negligence of the resident doctor or other employes in a hospital, no issue was presented which would require a reversal under the circumstances here.

(d) The question of whether a staff doctor in charge of a pay patient in a hospital ordered the patient's discharge is a fact question for the jury where there is a conflict in the testimony and records on that point.

(e) Where it appears from the record that a jury could reasonably find that a pay patient had not been discharged from a hospital by his doctor, a member of the hospital staff, the question whether the doctor was under a duty to visit the patient and make timely inspection of his condition was one for the jury.

(f) There was no reversible error under the facts and circumstances here in connection with the admission of photographs showing the condition of the patient's foot on a certain date. Considering the instructions as a whole and not merely excerpts therefrom, we find no prejudicial errors justifying a reversal as to the other alleged errors in the instructions.

R. E. Cummins, Linus J. Hammond, Cummins, Cummins, Hammond & Ames, St. Paul, for defendant-appellant Hauser.

Briggs, Gilbert, Morton, Kyle & Macartney, St. Paul, William P. O'Brien, Frank N. Graham, St. Paul, for appellants Finkelnberg and Ramsey Co. Welfare Bd.

Silver, Green & Goff, St. Paul, Desmond B. Hunt, Rochester, for Michael Lewis Moeller and Burdette E. Moeller, for respondents.

FRANK T. GALLAGHER, Justice.

Plaintiff Michael Lewis Moeller, when five years of age, suffered serious injury to his right foot while he was being treated in Ancker Hospital for a leg fracture. Michael, through his father, Burdette E. Moeller, as guardian, brought suits against a group of doctors and against the Ramsey County Welfare Board. The father brought suit against the doctors seeking recovery of the medical expenses incurred by reason of Michael's injury. The suits were tried together. During the course of the trial the actions were dismissed as to all the defendants except Dr. Victor P. Hauser, Dr. William O. Finkelnberg, and the Ramsey County Welfare Board. The jury returned a verdict for Michael of $30,000 against Drs. Hauser and Finkelnberg; one of $1,311.05 for the father against said doctors; and one of $10,000 for Michael against the County Welfare Board. All three defendants appeal from orders denying their alternative motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdicts or a new trial.

On June 6, 1947, while visiting in St. Paul, Michael Lewis Moeller, a resident of Rochester, Minnesota, accidentally sustained a simple fracture of the middle third of the right femur (the bone between the hip and the knee). He was taken to Ancker Hospital in St. Paul in a police ambulance. Ancker Hospital is operated by the Ramsey County Welfare Board primarily for indigent persons in need of medical care who cannot pay for it. The hospital does not refuse any emergency accident cases, however, and those who are able to pay the hospital costs are required to do so. Michael was classified as a pay patient.

In order to understand the issues presented by this case, it is necessary to summarize generally the organization and functions of the hospital. The hospital employs and pays resident doctors, internes, and nurses. The work of the hospital is divided into a number of divisions of service, and the internes rotate among these divisions, serving approximately one month in each one. Internes provide medical services under the supervision of resident doctors.

The resident doctors, as a rule, are fully licensed physicians. They are assigned to supervise the internes in providing the details of medical service, physical examinations, and necessary treatment with which the internes are charged; to assist them when their experience or practice is not sufficiently advanced so that they can do it themselves; and to report to the attending staff the progress and the effects of treatment. In addition, the resident is at the hospital to perfect himself in the specialty of his choice, and part of his activities have to do with studies directed toward that end. The resident doctors rotate in the divisions of service about every six months.

The staff doctors have established practices and maintain offices in St. Paul. They are appointed by the County Welfare Board after approval by the executive committee of the hospital. The staff doctors, for purposes of administrative and professional efficiency, are divided into various divisions, such as surgery, orthopedics, and internal medicine. They rotate between the various services and change regularly.

The medical staff has its constitution, bylaws, and rules and regulations (plaintiffs' exhibit A), which have been approved by the County Welfare Board. These rules and regulations prescribe the duties and responsibilities, within the organization of the hospital, of members of the medical staff and include the following provisions:

Paragraph 3 provides that patients shall be assigned to divisions and services by the superintendent; paragraph 4 provides that final responsibility for the care of patients shall rest with the senior attending physician to whom the cases are assigned; paragraph 5 pertains to physicians' written orders and provides that unwritten orders shall be disregarded, but that an order shall be considered in writing if dictated to a senior nurse or other authorized person and signed by the attending physician or his authorized representative; paragraph 13 provides that no physician shall receive any compensation for attendance in the case of any patient who is admitted free; paragraph 15 provides in part that in the case of an application for admission of a paying patient who has no attending physician he shall be assigned to a member of the attending staff; and paragraph 21 provides that the training of internes and residents shall be recognized as an obligation of the staff, and suitable provision shall be made for the furtherance of such training in all details in all the specialties involved.

During the period from May 31 to June 30, 1947, Dr. Hauser was the senior attending physician assigned to the fracture service at the hospital. As such senior attending physician, he assigned incoming patients to the particular doctors on the service, and he assigned the care of Michael Moeller to himself as attending physician. The practice was for each attending physician to retain in his care patients assigned to him until the patient was discharged, even though the term of service of the doctor on the particular service expired at some earlier time.

When Michael was taken to the hospital on June 6, 1947, he was given emergency treatment in the hospital receiving room, and it was determined that he had a simple fracture of the femur of the right limb. Dr. Myrle E. Windmiller, the resident doctor, contacted Dr. Hauser, the staff doctor, regarding Michael's injury, and Dr. Hauser advised Dr. Windmiller to use the Bryant's method of overhead traction. Dr. Hauser testified that he saw Michael on the following day and that he saw him probably six or seven times between June 7 and June 30. He said that he last examined the patient on...