Pilgrim v. Landham, 28481.

• Decision Date: 30 October 1940
• Docket Number: No. 28481.,28481.
• Citation: 11 S.E.2d 420
• Court: Georgia Court of Appeals
• Parties: PILGRIM. v. LANDHAM et al.

11 S.E.2d 420

PILGRIM.

v.LANDHAM et al.

No. 28481.

Court of Appeals of Georgia,

Division No. J.

Oct. 30, 1940.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. 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.

2. 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 the treatment.

3. What is the proper method of diagnosing a case is a medical question to be testified to by physicians as expert witnesses. Laymen, even jurors and courts, are not permitted to say what is the proper method of diagnosing a case for discovering the nature of an ailment. Results of the diagnosis and treatment, if so pronounced as to become apparent, as where a leg or limb which has been broken is shorter than the other after diagnosis and treatment, may be testified to by any one. James v. Grigs by, 114 Kan. 627, 220 P. 267. And where, measured by the method shown by medical witnesses to be negligence and the evidence, a bad result is shown, it is the province of the jury to say whether the result was caused by the negligence.

4. However, the court and the jury must have a standard measure which they are to use in measuring the acts of the doctor in determining whether he exercised a reasonable degree of care and skill. They are not permitted to set up and use any arbitrary or artificial standard of measurement that a jury may wish to apply. The proper standard of measurement is to be established by testimony of physicians; for it is a medical question.

5. The case here was brought in Fulton County, Georgia, against Dr. Landham, a resident of that county, and Dr. Hamilton, a resident of Douglas County, and the court, having nonsuited the case as to Dr. Land-ham, did not err, on motion by Dr. Hamilton, in dismissing the suit as to him, for lack of jurisdiction.

Error from Superior Court, Fulton County; John D. Humphries, Judge.

Malpractice action by Mrs. Sarah Pilgrim against Dr. J. W. Landham and Dr. R. E. Hamilton. To review a judgment nonsuiting the case as to defendant Landham and dismissing for lack of jurisdiction as to defendant Hamilton, the plaintiff brings error.

Affirmed.

Mozley & Combs, of Marietta, and Burress & Dillard, of Atlanta, for plaintiff in error.

Bryan, Middlebrooks & Carter, of Atlanta, for defendants in error.

MacINTYRE, Judge.

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. "When we got to Dr. Landham's office he said I had better lie down and rest a while, so they carried me into the rest room and I laid down and rested until Dr. Hamilton came. I rested until Dr. Hamilton and Dr. Landham came in. Dr. Landham and Dr. Hamilton came in but my husband was not there, he was in the sitting room. Dr. Landham walked in there and saw me and Dr. Hamilton introduced him to me. He said, 'Dr. Hamilton tells me you have a tumor'. I said, 'Yes, that is what he said.' I was lying on my back and he came in and put his hand on my stomach, and felt it, and I said, 'Do you reckon I am really pregnant?' He said, 'It seems to be like Dr. Hamilton says, It is too low down to be pregnancy.' He put his hand on my abdomen, right here, and felt right here [indicating]. That part of my abdomen was distended, you could tell from my stomach that there was something wrong. I said, 'Are you going to take an X-ray of me?' and Dr. Landham said, 'No, it would not show up.' They carried me in then, that same day, they said they had decided to give me a treatment. I didn't know what kind of a treatment they were going to give me, but they carried me in and gave me this X-ray treatment. I said, 'Are you sure it is all right to give me this treatment?' and they said, 'Yes, ' and they turned me on my side and on my back, and gave me the treatment." 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...