Paine v. Wyatt, No. 41875.

• Court: United States State Supreme Court of Iowa
• Writing for the Court: EVANS
• Citation: 251 N.W. 78,217 Iowa 1147
• Parties: PAINE v. WYATT.
• Decision Date: 21 November 1933
• Docket Number: No. 41875.

217 Iowa 1147
251 N.W. 78

PAINE
v.
WYATT.

No. 41875.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

Nov. 21, 1933.

Appeal from District Court, Hamilton County; T. G. Garfield, Judge.

The defendant herein is a regular physician and surgeon, and at the times hereinafter stated was engaged in the practice of his profession. The plaintiff sues for damages for alleged malpractice by the defendant in the treatment of certain injuries previously sustained by the plaintiff on December 4, 1930. In divisions 2 and 3 of his answer the defendant set up the two affirmative defenses of “estoppel” and “accord and satisfaction.” To these defenses the plaintiff interposed a demurrer, which was overruled by the trial court. The plaintiff elected to stand upon the ruling and suffered judgment, from which this appeal is prosecuted.

Affirmed.

[251 N.W. 79]

Smith & Smith, of Ames, and F. J. Lund, of Webster City, for appellant.

Dutcher, Walker & Ries, of Iowa City, E. P. Prince, of Webster City, and Daniel C. Dutcher, of Iowa City, for appellee.

EVANS, Justice.

We devote our first attention to the plea of “accord and satisfaction.” By the third division of the answer, it was made to appear that, at and before the time of his injury, the plaintiff was an employee of the Oliver Farm Equipment Sales Company; that, by reason of his injury and his disability, the plaintiff became entitled to demand and receive workmen's compensation under the Iowa statute; that the plaintiff elected to claim the benefits of the statute and proceeded to enforce his rights thereunder pursuant to the provisions of the statute; that compensation was awarded to him; that his employer has performed and is performing the final orders of commissioner in such case, and that the plaintiff has been receiving and is receiving the full benefit of such adjudication; that all the rights of the plaintiff have been thereby fully adjudicated and the plaintiff has received full satisfaction thereof; that, if the plaintiff suffered any injury by reason of the unskillfulness or negligence of the attending physician, such negligence was an aggravation of the original injury, and its consequences were recoverable to and by the plaintiff under the Workmen's Compensation Act; that in any event his remedy under the Workmen's Compensation Act became exclusive by the terms of the statute upon his election to pursue the same.

As against the foregoing, the plaintiff contends that he is proceeding pursuant to section 1382 of the Code, and that by the terms of such statute it is permissible to him to proceed against the defendant as a third party in a common-law action for damages. In short, section 1382 becomes the fighting ground in the case.

[1][2][3] I. It has been the policy of the common law from its beginnings to regard the surgeon as a reasonably necessary adjunct to the recovery of the patient in personal injury cases. The wrongdoer is charged with notice of that fact and under the rules of law is rendered chargeable for the value of such surgical services and for all its hazards. If the surgeon prove neglectful or unskillful, his acts are deemed an aggravation of the injury, and their evil consequences, if any, are chargeable to the wrongdoer to the same extent as though he had himself perpetrated the negligence. All the consequences of unskillful treatment are deemed to inhere in the original wrong. That is to say, the original wrong of the wrongdoer is deemed as the efficient cause of such aggravation as results from the surgical...