St. Martin v. Doty

• Decision Date: 13 December 1972
• Citation: 493 S.W.2d 95
• Parties: Thomas R. ST. MARTIN and Jean Q. St. Martin, Appellants, v. Dr. Robert D. DOTY and Holston Valley Community Hospital, Appellee.
• Court: Tennessee Court of Appeals

Page 95

493 S.W.2d 95

Thomas R. ST. MARTIN and Jean Q. St. Martin, Appellants, v. Dr. Robert D. DOTY and Holston Valley Community Hospital, Appellee.

Court of Appeals of Tennessee, Western Section.

Dec. 13, 1972 Certiorari Denied by Supreme Court April 2, 1973.

Whitworth Stokes of Boasberg, Granat & Kass, Washington, D.C., for appellants.

M. Lacy West, of West & DeVault, Kingsport, for appellee, Dr. Robert D. Doty.

Joe W. Worley, of Wilson, Worley, Gamble & Dodson, Kingsport, for appellee, Holston Valley Community Hospital, Inc.

NEARN, Judge.

This is a medical malpractice case where directed verdicts were entered for defendants. Plaintiffs have appealed and cited as error the action of the Trial Judge in directing the verdicts.

On May 15, 1970, plaintiff Jean Q. St. Martin filed her suit against Dr. Robert D. Doty and Holston Valley Community Hospital, Inc. which alleged that on June 9, 1969, she was hospitalized at the defendant hospital, for purposes of surgery to be performed by her private physician, defendant Doty; that Dr. Doty performed a hysterectomy on plaintiff and that Dr. Doty and the nurse employees of the hospital negligently failed to remove and allowed to remain within the body of plaintiff, a sponge. The Declaration charged that the failure to remove the sponge 'caused, or contributed to, or aggravated an infectious condition in plaintiff' resulting in prolonged discomfort, pain and suffering to the plaintiff. Further, that this weakened condition of plaintiff caused, or contributed to, or made plaintiff more susceptible and less resistant to the infection caused by the sponge and also the disease of hepatitis which plaintiff contracted. All of which caused plaintiff pain, suffering and permanent injury.

The husband, Thomas St. Martin, filed his Declaration alleging the same facts and charging that the negligence of the defendants caused him loss of his wife's services and incurrence of medical expenses, present and In futuro.

On November 8, 1971, plaintiff, Jean Q. St. Martin filed an Amended Declaration which alleged that plaintiff received two blood transfusions while confined to the hospital on her initial confinement and as a result of these transfusions, plaintiff incurred infections hepatitis which required additional hospital confinement. The Amended Declarations charged that the transfusions were negligently administered and as a proximate result of the negligent failure of the hospital, acting upon the instructions of defendant Doty, to take reasonable and proper precautions to administer blood free from impurities and disease, plaintiff was caused to endure additional pain and suffering.

The defendants filed various Pleas to the Declarations and finally answered. The ruling of the Trial Judge on the various Pleas filed is not cited as error, for all rulings were in favor of the plaintiff. We therefore will not consider the action of the Trial Court in those instances.

The Answer of the defendant hospital denied all acts of negligence on the part of its agents, servants or employees.

The Answer of Dr. Doty denied all acts of negligence on his part; denied that any surgical sponges were left in plaintiff's body, but averred that a medicated sponge pack was left in plaintiff's vagina which was the proper thing to do in hysterectomy operations, and that the medicated pack caused no infection, weakness, hepatitis or other injury.

At the close of plaintiff's proof, the Trial Judge sustained motions of the defendants to direct a verdict for defendants on the Amended Declaration.

Counsel for appellants cites that action of the Trial Judge as error and argues that plaintiff's proof raised a question of fact for the jury as to the claim alleged in the Amended Declaration.

It is the duty of this Court in reviewing the action of a Trial Court in directing a verdict to examine all the evidence presented on the issue, take the strongest legitimate view of the proof in favor of the complaining party, discard all countervailing evidence, resolve all disputes as to any material evidence or doubt as to conclusions to be drawn from the evidence, all in favor of the complaining party. Poole v. First Nat. Bank of Smyrna (1946 M.S.) 29 Tenn.App. 327, 196 S.W.2d 563 and many others. However, applying this rule to this case presents some difficulty as we are unable to find any competent proof in the record on the issue of the causation of the hepatitis or negligence in the administration of the transfusions from which to draw any conclusions in favor of the plaintiff. As to the Nexus between plaintiff's hepatitis and the blood transfusions, plaintiff's proof showed only that it was a possibility that the transfusions induced hepatitis. Plaintiff's medical proof on the subject on cross-examination revealed the following:

'Q. What I was really getting at, Doctor, that although medicine is very exact, in the setting with which you dealt here and the problem with which you dealt, it's really not possible to say with any degree of medical certainty what caused that lady's hepatitis, was it?

A. As is usually the case, the diagnosis of viral induced hepatitis is based upon the clinical setting with an appropriate incubation period, a blood picture that is compatible with a viral infection, and clincial findings and clinical symptoms resembling viral induced hepatitis, and that is not exact.

Q. It's just a choice of what you regarded as the likeliest of several possibilities?...