Prestegord v. Glenn
| Decision Date | 07 May 1969 |
| Docket Number | No. B--1326,B--1326 |
| Citation | 441 S.W.2d 185 |
| Parties | Jackie PRESTEGORD et vir, Petitioner, v. James C. GLENN, M.D., Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Harris E. Lofthus, Amarillo, for petitioners.
Stokes, Carnahan & Fields, Oscar P. Fields, Jr., Amarillo, for respondent.
Petitioner, Jackie Prestegord, joined by her husband, instituted this suit for damages against Dr. James C. Glenn, Respondent, charging negligence in medical practice and treatment. Dr. Glenn moved for summary judgment on the ground that no genuine issue existed as to any material facts and that he was entitled to judgment as a matter of law 'by reason of the depositions on file.' The depositions referred to were those of Mrs. Prestegord, Dr. Glenn and Dr. William J. Hegedus, which were taken by Petitioner. Mrs. Prestegord also filed her affidavit and that of her husband in response to the motion for summary judgment. The trial court granted Dr. Glenn's motion and entered a takenothing judgment against Petitioners. This was affirmed by the Court of Civil Appeals. 436 S.W.2d 623. We reverse the judgments below and remand the cause for further proceedings.
Dr. Glenn, a specialist in obstetrics and gynecology, attended Mrs. Prestegord in her pregnancy, which was established by his examination on August 25, 1966. Mrs. Prestegord subsequently experienced difficulties which culminated in the surgical removal of her uterus and the lifeless fetus on November 21, 1966. Mrs. Prestegord alleged that Dr. Glenn was negligent as follows: (1) in failing to discover the true cause of her difficulties in time to prevent loss of her uterus; (2) in making a negligent diagnosis and in failing to make proper tests; (3) in failing to properly treat her; (4) in performing an inadvisable and unnecessary hysterectomy upon her; and (5) in failing to correctly diagnose a postoperative complication.
Mrs. Prestegord in her affidavit and deposition, and Dr. Glenn in his deposition, related in detail the difficulties experienced by Mrs. Prestegord and the treatment prescribed by Dr. Glenn. They differ in these significant respects. Mrs. Prestegord stated that she experienced 'hard pain' in her lower abdomen on the left side, a constant pain that never quit, and that she communicated this to Dr. Glenn. Dr. Glenn testified that Mrs. Prestegord complained of 'some cramping in her abdomen,' and did not complain of hard or constant pain. He testified the cramping indicated to him that she was trying to miscarry, but that the presence of constant pain would have required him to gather more information on her condition, perhaps a complete blood count and abdominal X-rays. He stated that had such severe constant pain been present, he would have undertaken more thorough studies; but that the patient did not have the constant pain and did not indicate to him the presence of any pain but cramping.
Mrs. Prestegord also testified to the passing of blood of varying color at various times; she stated in her affidavit that she was examined by Dr. Glenn on October 17, 1966, on which occasion she 'gushed fresh red blood.' Dr. Glenn testified, however, that his records did not indicate that she gushed blood, but that she did have some vaginal spotting. He stated that he would have hospitalized her had she gushed blood, and that it would not have been good medical practice not to do something if she lost a serious amount of blood; and, further, that she could not have lost a significant amount of blood since she had a satisfactory blood count after the October 17 examination.
Mrs. Prestegord also testified that she suffered a postoperative condition which Dr. Glenn diagnosed as a stomach disorder, but that in fact she was suffering from pneumonitis. She stated that she obtained no relief from...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wheat v. United States
...that the Army physicians failed to recognize that the Plaintiff's symptoms indicated a particular disease. See Prestgord v. Glenn, 441 S.W.2d 185, 186 (Tex.1969). Plaintiffs established by credible expert testimony of two physicians in the area of expertise of gynecology that Shilla Wheat's......
-
Coward v. Gateway Nat. Bank of Beaumont
...Prestegord, 456 S.W.2d 901 (Tex.1970); Harrington v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of Houston, 452 S.W.2d 423 (Tex.1970); Prestegord v. Glenn, 441 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.1969); Torres v. Western Cas. & Surety Co., 457 S.W.2d 50, 52 (Tex.1970); Abbott Laboratories v. Gravis, 470 S.W.2d 639 (Tex.1971)......
-
Swilley v. Hughes, B--3118
...Motors Corporation, 450 S.W.2d 827 (Tex.1970); Torres v. Western Casualty and Surety Company, 457 S.W.2d 50 (Tex.1970); Prestegord v. Glenn, 441 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.1969). Cf. 'Moore' Burger, Inc. v. Phillips Petroleum Company, (Tex.1972); Gulf, Colorado & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. McBride, 159 T......
-
Joe Adams and Son v. McCann Const. Co.
...there is no genuine issue of fact as to one or more of the essential elements of a plaintiff's cause of action; and in Prestegord v. Glenn, 441 S.W.2d 185 (Tex.1969), second appeal, Glenn v. Prestegord, 456 S.W.2d 901 (Tex.1970), we made quite clear that the announced rule obtains even thou......