Pilgrim v. Landham
| Decision Date | 30 October 1940 |
| Docket Number | 28481. |
| Citation | 11 S.E.2d 420,63 Ga.App. 451 |
| Parties | PILGRIM v. LANDHAM et al. |
| Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Mozley & Combs, of Marietta, and Burress & Dillard, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.
Bryan Middlebrooks & Carter, of Atlanta, for defendants in error.
Mrs Sarah Pilgrim brought this suit for damages for malpractice of medicine in Fulton County, Georgia, against Dr. J. W Landham, a resident of Fulton County, and Dr. R. E. Hamilton a resident of Douglas County, Georgia. The case was nonsuited as to the defendant Landham; and thereafter, on motion, was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as to the defendant Hamilton. To these rulings the plaintiff excepted.
The plaintiff testified that after her family physician, Dr. Hamilton, had examined her at Douglasville, Georgia, and diagnosed her case as a tumor and not pregnancy, although she told him she thought it was the latter, he brought her to Atlanta to Dr. Landham an X-ray specialist. She further testified: "I talked to Dr. Landham about giving me an X-ray examination, but he said it wasn't necessary." The plaintiff's husband testified that Dr. Landham told him that the X-ray would not show up a tumor.
Relative to a diagnosis by a doctor for discovering the nature of an ailment, the general rule of law is that a patient is entitled to a thorough and careful examination, such as the condition of the patient and the attending circumstances will permit, with such diligence and method of diagnosis for discovering the nature of the ailment as are usually approved and practiced under similar circumstances by members of his profession in good standing. Fortner v. Koch, 272 Mich. 273, 261 N.W. 762, 765; 48 C.J. 1113, § 101. Code, § 84-924, declares:
Where a family physician has diagnosed the case and given it as his opinion that the patient is suffering from a tumor and desires an operation or treatment by an expert, the expert has the right to rely on the diagnosis of the family physician, and in the absence of anything warranting a contrary conclusion, to perform the operation or give treatment. Sweeney v. Erving, 35 App.D.C. 57, 43 L.R.A.,N.S 734, 740. Where the expert tells the patient in effect that he was relying on the family doctor's diagnosis that she had a tumor, and that he was going to give her treatment accordingly, the mere fact that the expert might have given the patient a slight examination from the outside, by feeling the stomach or abdomen and noticing the enlargement of the same, and where there was nothing appearing to contradict the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Johnson v. Omondi
... ... Timms, 158 Ga.App. 538, 539(1), 281 S.E.2d 295 (1981). See also Pilgrim v. Landham, 63 Ga.App. 451, 454–455, 11 S.E.2d 420 (1940) (“What is the proper method of diagnosing a case is a medical question to be testified ... ...
-
Hill v. Hospital Authority of Clarke County
... ... The facts here did not warrant an exception to the general rule which is stated in Headnote 4 of Pilgrim v. Landham, 63 Ga.App. 451, 11 S.E.2d 420 that 'the proper standard of measurement is to be established by testimony of physicians for it is a ... ...
-
Anderson v. Crippen, 45027
... ... Pilgrim v. Landham, 63 Ga.App. 451(4), 11 S.E.2d 420; Howell v. Jackson, 65 Ga.App. 422, 16 S.E.2d 45; 70 C.J.S. Physicians and Surgeons § 62, 1006-1008; 41 ... ...
-
Killingsworth v. Poon
... ... Jackson v. Tucker, 118 Ga.App. 693(1), 165 S.E.2d 466 (1968); Pilgrim v. Landham, 63 Ga.App. 451, 454, 11 S.E.2d 420 (1940); Summerour v. Lee, supra, 104 Ga.App. at 74, 121 S.E.2d 80; Washington v. City of Columbus, ... ...