Stern v. Lanng

• Decision Date: 01 January 1901
• Docket Number: 13,836
• Citation: 31 So. 303,106 La. 738
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
• Parties: SAMUEL STERN v. OSCAR R. LANNG

31 So. 303

106 La. 738

SAMUEL STERN v. OSCAR R. LANNG

No. 13,836

Supreme Court of Louisiana

January 1, 1901

Rehearing refused.

APPEAL from the Civil District Court, Parish of Orleans. -- Sommerville, J.

Charles Rosen, for Plaintiff, Appellant.

E. N Whittemore, for Defendant, Appellee.

OPINION

BREAUX J.

This action was brought by the appellant, Samuel Stern, against the defendant, an oculist, to recover damages for personal injuries alleged to have been sustained by reason of negligence and want of skill of the defendant in the method followed in removing a tumor which plaintiff had on his face just below the left eye.

Having called upon the defendant at his office, he was advised by him to undergo a surgical operation, to which he consented. He averred that after the removal of the tumor, defendant injected a liquid which he believes was acid, burnt his eye and destroyed his sight in that eye.

He alleges, in substance, that the tumor was disconnected from the eye, and that prior to the operation it did not affect his sight, which was perfect; that he has suffered great physical pain and mental anguish by reason of the injury to his eye, which is permanent; that he is not now able to keep books, as he did formerly, and attend to his business.

He complains of the manner he was deluded by defendant from time to time with false hope of recovery, and avers that the tumor was small, the size of a pea; that the eye was sound and he healthy, and the removal could have been affected without injuring his eyesight.

The defendant controverts the accusations brought against him and avers that he was reasonably careful and skillful in removing the tumor from plaintiff's face; that he followed the usual course prescribed by eminent authors who have written upon the subject and that ordinarily such operations are not attended with injury to the eye.

We have examined as closely as we could the testimony of each of the witnesses. The plaintiff, as a witness in his own behalf succinctly enough relates the incidents of the operation which led to the deplorable result of which he complains. During the operation he felt great pain, a burning pain, he said, from which he obtained no relief for some time afterwards. The condition of the eye, he says, did not improve under treatment, and since the operation he is unable to see out of the eye. A second operation was performed and it failed to bring about the expected cure. He followed closely the physician's direction, but the applications prescribed did not improve his sight. He was told to be patient and that it would be all right in a couple of months. When the trial took place, it was evident that the sight of the eye was greatly injured and that it would never be restored to the condition in which it was before the operation had been performed. There is force in the argument pressed upon our attention in support of plaintiff and appellant's claim.

The tumor was not large and plaintiff urges that the removal would not have had any consequences at all if the medicine injected had not burnt the eye; that this medicine was "lime or acid or other cauterizing agency" or other caustic.

There is no question that the appellant states the facts as they impressed him. It remains that one who is suffering while undergoing a surgical operation is not always the best judge of the cause of the pain he feels.

As relates to the extent of the injury charged, it appears that on the 4th of September (the tumor was removed on May 2nd), Dr. Jowers, an occulist, examined the eye and found an adhesion of the eyelid to the cornea. It was shown at the trial in December following that there was opacity of the cornea. There was the same cicatrical contractions. Dr. Jowers said he should be able to read and write. He saw, he said, at a distance of about seventeen feet what he should have been able to see at about one hundred feet; about one-sixth of what his sight should have been in the injured eye. He testified further that he did not think that anything could have been done for him that would have restored his vision. Nature would do no more than any prescription. He said to the plaintiff when he was in his office in September that his eye had been cauterized, and asked him the question. He stated he had discovered nothing since, that confirmed him in that belief. Witness explains that he meant by cauterization that something had been put in his eye that would burn the epithelium layer, or, in other words, the tissue of the cornea. The cornea is the anterior membrane of the eye. Its function is to receive and transmit light into the back part of the eye. It is perfectly transparent in its normal state.

Dr. Paul Reiss, another oculist, testified that if the eye is perfect, a tumor should be removed from the lower lid by exercising reasonable care and skill without injuring the eyesight and that with reasonable care and skill it is possible to stem the blood after the operation.

Plaintiff's attending physician, Dr. W. H. Taylor, who had been his physician before, and was his physician after, the operation, testified that the condition of the plaintiff "at present is that there is this cicatrical adhesion (of the lid), but what it was caused by I don't know." Words in brackets ours. He had occasion to examine the eye about two weeks after the operation by the defendant.

The testimony shows that the defendant, Lanng, is a reputable oculist of large experience. He says that he anaesthetized the locus of the trouble by the use of a solution of cocaine, that the ailment was what is called chalagion or torsal cyst containing gelatinous substance, and his reason for removing it as he did was because it would eventually have grown larger and interfere with plaintiff's appearance and spoil his good looks. A crucial incision was made which bled quite freely, as is usually the case. A scoop was used in continuing the operation and cleansing the sac this was followed by the application of a piece of nitrate of silver for the purpose of producing inflammation. This nitrate of silver, about an inch in length, had about the shape of a lead pencil. Afterward h...