Sheridan v. Quarrier

• Decision Date: 06 November 1940
• Citation: Sheridan v. Quarrier, 127 Conn. 279, 16 A.2d 479 (Conn. 1940)
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: SHERIDAN v. QUARRIER.

16 A.2d 479

127 Conn. 279

SHERIDAN v. QUARRIER.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

November 6, 1940

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; Kenneth Wynne, Judge.

Action of malpractice by Charles Sheridan against Sidney S Quarrier.The case was tried to the court.From a judgment for defendant, plaintiff appeals.

No error.

In determining appeal from judgment dismissing malpractice action, where finding was devoid of claimed fact that condition of patient's toe was called to attention of defendant surgeon, who assisted in performing operation but who did not have charge of after-care, by interne a week after operation, such claimed fact could not be considered by Supreme Court of Errors.

James E. Cannon and Raymond J. Cannon, both of Hartford, for appellant.

Cyril Coleman, of Hartford, for appellee.

Argued before Maltbie, C.J., and Ells, Avery, Brown, and Jennings JJ.

ELLS Judge.

The question at issue is whether, under the facts of the casethe defendant, a surgeon on the surgical staff of the Hartford Hospital, who was present at and assisted in an operation performed upon a ward patient by an interne, owed the duty of aftercare following the operation.

The finding states the following facts: The defendant, a licensed physician and surgeon, was an assistant surgeon on the staff of the hospital.The plaintiff was a ward patient, that is one who pays for his hospital care but receives free of charge medical and surgical care from members of the hospital staff.The chief of the hospital staff designated an interne to amputate the plaintiff's left little toe, and designated the defendant to be present and assist.The operation was performed and was a very simple one, and the resulting open wound was ‘ packed’ by the interne, that is, a strip of vaseline gauze six inches long and two inches wide folded three or four times into a two inch square piece was applied to the wound and the entire foot bound up with plain gauze.The patient was returned to the ward ‘ where the aftercare was in the hands of surgeons assigned to the ward by the chief of staff’ .On the day folowing the operation the interne removed the vaseline gauze.About three weeks later the patient was discharged from the hospital.The operative wound had healed fairly well, but there was still a small amount of discharge from the stump.A few days later an area began to ulcerate and was probed by the plaintiff's personal physician.The area around the amputation had been dressed with gauze dressings at least once a day from the date of his discharge, to April 23d, by various persons,-his new physician, a nurse, the plaintiff, his wife, and his brother-in-law.On April 25th a piece of tightly rolled decayed gauze which had been inserted at the operation and not thereafter removed was taken from the wound.The infection spread, and caused serious injury.It was further found that the defendant‘ except for being present at the operation had no connection with the plaintiff's care or treatment.’Upon these factsthe trial court concluded that the defendant was not under any duty to care for or teat the plaintiff after the operation.

The plaintiff had the burden of proving that the defendant failed to exercise that degree of care, skill and diligence ordinarily had and exercised by physicians and surgeons engaged in the same line of practice in the general neighborhood of Hartford.Geraty v. Kaufman,115 Conn. 563, 572, 573, 162 A. 33.If there was negligence constituting malpractice, it occurred during the aftercare.No claim is made that there was negligence in connection with the operation itself, which was the only connection the defendant had with the patient's care or treatment.Therefore the plaintiff must prove that there was a legal obligation on the part of Dr. Quarrier to treat the patient after the operation and that he failed in that duty.The facts found do not indicate that there was such proof; they show that there was no such duty.The defendant was assigned to the case for the sole purpose of assisting in the operation itself.The aftercare was in the hands of other surgeons assigned to the ward by the chief of staff.The defendant was on duty in the women's ward only, and had no connection with the aftercare of this patient.Upon these facts, as the trial court...