Riggs v. Christie
| Decision Date | 06 April 1961 |
| Citation | 173 N.E.2d 610,342 Mass. 402 |
| Parties | Richard W. RIGGS et al. v. James D. CHRISTIE. |
| Court | United States State Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts Supreme Court |
Edward M. Swartz, Brookline, for plaintiffs.
David W. Kelley, Boston, for defendant.
Before WILKINS, C. J., and WHITTEMORE, CUTTER, KIRK and SPIEGEL, JJ.
The plaintiff Richard W. Riggs, a minor (hereinafter called the plaintiff), seeks damages from the defendant, a general practitioner of medicine in Littleton, for physical harm allegedly suffered because of a delay in getting a diagnosis of the plaintiff's condition following an appendectomy. The plaintiff's mother seeks consequential damages. The jury returned verdicts for the plaintiffs. The judge reserved leave to set the verdicts aside, and later upon motion did so, and entered verdicts for the defendant. The propriety of the judge's action in this respect is the only question before us. In determining the question we apply the familiar rule that the plaintiffs is entitled to have the evidence considered in its aspect most favorable to him from whatever source it comes. Interstate Busses Corp. v. McKenna, 329 Mass. 1, 2, 105 N.E.2d 852.
The defendant, a licensed physician, had been engaged in the general practice of medicine in the town of Littleton since 1910. He had treated the plaintiff and his mother before. There were other doctors in the town. On May 17, 1954, the plaintiff, an only child and then eleven years old, was taken by his mother to the defendant's office. He complained of severe abdominal pains. The defendant said that there 'may be a questionable appendicitis, but he rather thought it was a virus.' He prescribed pills, and instructed the mother to bring the plaintiff back if the pain continued. She brought the plaintiff back the next day. The pains were worse. The defendant stated it was not a virus and arranged for a blood count at the Emerson Hospital in Concord where it was determined that the plaintiff had appendicitis. The defendant then had Dr. Chandler, a surgeon from Clinton, examine the plaintiff at the Community Memorial Hospital in Ayer. The surgeon said that the most likely diagnosis at the time was acute appendicitis and he recommended immediate surgery. The operation was performed that day, May 18, 1954. The defendant assisted at the operation. The appendix was acutely inflamed at the tip, and the case was unusual in that the tip adhered to the ileum and had to be separated from it. On May 19, 1954, the plaintiff broke out with chicken pox, and strict contagion technique was thereafter observed. On Saturday, May 22, 1954, at 11 a. m. the plaintiff left the hospital. When the plaintiff's mother took him home, the defendant was not at the hospital but he had seen the plaintiff earlier in the morning. At home, the plaintiff had pain, was very weak, and perspired freely. The chicken pox was still active. He was put to bed. His temperature at 2 p. m. was 101~. In the afternoon, the mother called the defendant at his office and 'described * * * [the plaintiff's] condition to him.' The defendant did not feel it was necessary to visit the plaintiff. He told the mother that the pain was gas pain, that the temperature was due to excitement, and that he would have pills for the gas pains if she would pick them up at his office, which she did.
At ten o'clock Sunday morning, May 23, 1954, the plaintiff's father called the defendant and 'explained * * * [the plaintiff's] condition to' him. The pain was worse, the abdomen was very tender, the temperature was 102~, his face was distorted with pain, he was perspiring, his legs were drawn up, and he had abdominal pains. The father asked the defendant to come and see the plaintiff. The defendant told the father that he thought the boy had picked up a virus, that the mother was acting as the typical mother of an only child, and that there was nothing the matter with the plaintiff so far as the appendectomy was concerned. The father went to the defendant's office and got some pills.
On Monday, May 24, 1954, at 7:15 a. m. the mother telephoned to the defendant and informed him that on Sunday afternoon the plaintiff had 'terrific pain,' had diarrhea which lasted well into the night, had vomited the pills supplied by the defendant, had fallen asleep of exhaustion at 2 a. m. Monday, and had awakened at 6:15 a. m. in 'terrific pain.'
The defendant arrived at the plaintiff's house at 10 a. m., examined the plaintiff, took his temperature which was 105~, felt his abdomen, and decided that a surgeon should see him. The defendant made arrangements for the admission of the plaintiff to the Children's Hospital. The plaintiff and his mother arrived at 4:30 p. m., and he was placed in isolation because he still had chicken pox.
The Children's Hospital record contains the notation that upon admission the plaintiff's temperature was 100.6~. It also states that following X-ray and examination 'The appearance [of the X-ray], in conjunction with the history, is very suggestive of peritoneal inflammatory reaction.'
The medical testimony, in substance, was as follows: Peritonitis in an inflammation of the membrane which lines the abdominal cavity and covers all the internal organs. There are several causes of peritonitis. It may be caused by chemical irritation. More commonly it is secondary to bacterial infection. No matter how carefully an operation may be performed, and in spite of all that can be done medically, there is no guaranty that peritonitis will not follow. Following an appendix operation, the first two or three days are the ones to worry about most. It is possible but less likely that it could develop within four or five days. The symptoms of peritonitis are many and varied. Common symptoms are abdominal pains, fever, vomiting, diarrhea, and doubling up of legs. Such symptoms are indicative of many other troubles and diseases besides peritonitis. There is no routine...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lambley v. Kameny
...protection of those on whom he practices from foreseeable risks. See Small v. Howard, 128 Mass. 131, 135 (1880); Riggs v. Christie, 342 Mass. 402, 405-406, 173 N.E.2d 610 (1961); Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 282, 289, 299A; Prosser & Keeton, supra, § 30, at 164, § 53, at 356-358; Seavey......
-
Paiva v. Kaplan
...916, or to guarantee a good outcome. See Schwartz v. Goldstein, 400 Mass. 152, 155, 508 N.E.2d 97 (1987). In Riggs v. Christie, 342 Mass. 402, 405-406, 173 N.E.2d 610 (1961), the Supreme Judicial Court held that "the undertaking of a physician as implied by law is that he possesses and will......
-
Haggerty v. McCarthy
...253, 255; Tallon v. Spellman, 302 Mass. 179, 183, 19 N.E.2d 33; Kiley v. Dervin, 314 Mass. 478, 483-484, 50 N.E.2d 393; Riggs v. Christie, 342 Mass. 610, 173 N.E.2d 610, a and cases cited. See also Vigneault v. Dr. Hewson Dental Co., 300 Mass. 223, 225-227, 15 N.E.2d 185. The exceptional ca......
-
Pasquale v. Chandler
...profession in the community where he practises, having regard to the current state of advance of the profession.' Riggs v. Christie, 342 Mass. 402, 406, 173 N.E.2d 610, 613; Tallon v. Spellman, 302 Mass. 179, 182--183, 19 N.E.2d 33. The autopsy report and the death certificate taken in conj......
-
Defining the limits of a physician's duty to disclose in Massachusetts.
...rule society expects physicians of small communities to possess lower level of skill than city physicians); see also Riggs v. Christie, 173 N.E.2d 610, 613 (Mass. 1961) (reaffirming rule that physician uses degree of learning, skill, and experience of doctors in locality); Ramsland v. Shaw,......