Nelson v. Dahl
| Decision Date | 15 June 1928 |
| Docket Number | 26,715 |
| Citation | 219 N.W. 941,174 Minn. 574 |
| Parties | JOHN M. NELSON v. ANDREW L. DAHL |
| Court | Minnesota Supreme Court |
Plaintiff as special administrator of the estate of Clara Anderson appealed from an order of the district court for Hennepin county, Nordbye, J. denying his motion for a new trial. Affirmed.
Professional care and skill required of physician in treating his patient.
1. When a doctor accepts professional employment he is only required to exercise such reasonable care and skill as is usually exercised by doctors in good standing of the same school of practice.
Professional skill of physician to be tested by opinion of those skilled in his particular school.
2. When a patient selects a doctor of a recognized school of treatment he thereby adopts the kind of treatment common to that school; and the care, skill and diligence with which he is treated must be tested by the evidence of those who are trained and skilled in that particular school of treatment.
What plaintiff must prove in action for malpractice.
3. In actions for malpractice plaintiff must show that the result concerning which complaint is made was due to negligence or unskilful treatment. Negligence is not presumed from results.
When new trial should not be granted because of new evidence.
4. A new trial should not be granted on the grounds of newly discovered evidence when it appears that the only reason for not producing such evidence on the trial is that it was not considered necessary.
New Trial, 29 Cyc. p. 896 n. 34.
Physicians and Surgeons, 30 Cyc. p. 1570 n. 19; p. 1571 n. 25; p. 1584 n. 49; p. 1586 n. 66.
Loring & Anderson and John M. Nelson, for appellant.
Philip J. Meighen, C. E. Ryberg and Harry E. Olsen, for respondent.
Plaintiff appealed from an order denying a motion for a new trial.
The action for malpractice is against a duly licensed chiropractic doctor. Plaintiff's intestate had a weak heart and a goiter. She suffered headaches and sought help therefor from defendant, who "analyzed" her spine and found "misalignments" of the vertebrae. He did not assume to treat her in the ordinary meaning of that term, but he undertook to adjust the spine by getting such vertebrae back into normal position so that abnormal pressure on the nerves would be removed with the idea that nature would take care of the rest. On January 19, 1926, defendant was called to see the patient, who was suffering with a severe headache and was vomiting. Defendant palpated the spine and sys he adjusted it. She seemed relieved but soon went into a convulsion from which she rallied with defendant's assistance. That evening she died.
An allopathic doctor testified decedent died from heart failure caused by toxemia, i. e. poison coming into the blood from the goiter.
1.The allopathic doctor disclaimed knowledge of the school of chiropractors. He was not permitted to give an opinion as to the effect of manipulations or adjustments of the spine. No offer of proof was made. We assume, though perhaps unjustifiably, that the opinion would have been hostile to the chiropractic theory.
When a doctor accepts professional employment he is only required to exercise such reasonable care and skill as is usually exercised by doctors in good standing of the same school of practice. Martin v. Courtney, 75 Minn. 255, 261, 77 N.W. 813; Moehlenbrock v. Parke, Davis & Co. 145 Minn. 100, 176 N.W. 169; Clark v. George, 148 Minn. 52, 180 N.W. 1011; Berkholz v. Benepe, 153 Minn. 335, 190 N.W. 800.
2. When a patient selects one of the several recognized schools of treatment, he thereby adopts and accepts the kind of treatment common to that school; and the care, skill and diligence with which ...
To continue reading
Request your trial