Stowers v. Wolodzko
| Decision Date | 09 November 1971 |
| Docket Number | No. 2,2 |
| Citation | 386 Mich. 119,191 N.W.2d 355 |
| Parties | Ethel K. STOWERS, Plaintiff and Appellee, v. Joseph WOLODZKO, Defendant and Appellant. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
George L. Downing, for Kelman, Loria, Downing & Schneider, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.
Moll, Desenberg, Purdy, Glover & Bayer, Detroit, for defendant-appellant.
Before the Entire Bench.
This case presents complicated issues concerning the liability of a doctor for actions taken subsequent to a person's confinement in a private mental hospital pursuant to a valid court order. The facts are seriously in dispute, both parties being in disagreement as to precisely what did occur. A full statement of the allegations of both parties is necessary in order that a proper framework be developed in an effort to resolve the legal issues involved.
Plaintiff, a housewife, resided in Livonia, Michigan, with her husband and children. She and her husband had been experiencing a great deal of marital difficulties and she testified that she had informed her husband two months previous to the events giving rise to this cause of action that she intended to file for a divorce.
On December 6, 1963, defendant appeared at plaintiff's home and introduced himself as 'Dr. Wolodzko.' Dr. Wolodzko had never met either plaintiff or her husband before he came to the house. He stated that he had been called by the husband, who had asked him to examine plaintiff. Plaintiff testified that defendant told her that he was there to ask about her husband's back. She testified that she told him to ask her husband, and that she had no further conversation with him or her husband. She testified that he never told her that he was a psychiatrist.
Dr. Wolodzko stated in this deposition (taken December 1, 1966) that he told plaintiff he was there to examine her. However, upon being questioned upon this point, he stated that he could 'not specifically' recollect having told plaintiff that he was there to examine her. He stated in his deposition that he was sure that the fact he was a psychiatrist would have come out, but that he couldn't remember if he had told plaintiff that he was a psychiatrist.
Plaintiff subsequently spoke to Dr. Wolodzko at the suggestion of a Livonia policewoman, following a domestic quarrel with her husband. He did inform her at that time that he was a psychiatrist.
On December 30, 1963, defendant Wolodzko and Dr. Anthony Smyk, apparently at the request of plaintiff's husband and without the authorization, knowledge, or consent of plaintiff, signed a sworn statement certifying that they had examined plaintiff and found her to be mentally ill. Such certificate was filed with the Wayne county probate court on January 3, 1964, and on the same date on order was entered by the probate court for the temporary hospitalization of plaintiff until a sanity hearing could be held. The judge ordered plaintiff committed to Ardmore Acres, a privately operated institution, pursuant to the provisions of M.C.L.A. 330.21, M.S.A. 14.811.
Plaintiff was transported to Ardmore Acres on January 4, 1964. Precisely what transpired on this date is greatly in dispute by the parties.
Plaintiff testified that on the evening of January 4, 1964, she was in her bedroom, partially undressed; that he children and her husband were upstairs; that the doorbell rang and she went to the door; that there were two men in white jackets at the door and Dr. Wolodzko was behind some shrubs outside the door; that the two men pushed past her into the house, the doctor following. Plaintiff further testified that the two men grabbed her, and defendant told her he was there to take her to an institution because she was mentally ill. He showed her a court order, but refused to allow her to read it. She asked to use the telephone, received no response, then asked to be allowed to get dressed, and went down a hallway, picked up the telephone and dialed the operator. Plaintiff testified that defendant called out, 'Grab her, don't let her use the telephone.' The ambulance attendants took the telephone away from her and pushed her into the bedroom, where she got dressed. She told defendant she did not want to go and pleaded with him to let her use the telephone to contact relatives or an attorney. His alleged response was to tell the ambulance driver to get a strait jacket. Plaintiff then told them that a strait jacket would not be necessary, and agreed to accompany them.
Defendant stated in his deposition that he went to plaintiff's home on January 4, 1964, and that when he arrived only the plaintiff and her family were present. He said that the ambulance and the two attendants arrived a quarter to one-half hour later. He said he couldn't recall that he told plaintiff he had a court order, or that he told the ambulance attendants to seize her and take her from the house, but that it was possible he had done so. In response to a question, he stated he could not recall that she had tried to use the telephone, or that it was taken from her. He stated that he was called to plaintiff's home by her husband to re-examine her, and did not know that she was to be sent to a hospital. He could not recall telling her that she had to go with him or that she would be tied to a stretcher if she refused.
However at the trial, defendant, on cross-examination, testified that on January 4, 1964, he made arrangements to meet Mr. Stowers and the ambulance people outside the Stowers' house. He stated that he met them on a corner some distance from the house and told the husband that the ambulance should stay out of sight. He went to see Mrs. Stowers and then her husband called the ambulance people, and when they came in he went upstairs with Mr. Stowers and the two children. He further testified that he issued no instructions to the ambulance attendants and did not see Mrs. Stowers attempt to use the telephone.
Robert Brooks, one of the ambulance attendants who took Mrs. Stowers to the hospital, testified that he met the defendant and Mr. Stowers on a corner near the Stowers' home. Upon being signaled, he went to the home and Mrs. Stowers opened the door. Mrs. Stowers was behind the door and he told her why he was there. He stated that the children were hysterical, that the plaintiff became violent, that they grabbed her, that she got loose and ran into the bedroom, that they followed her and during the resulting melee the bed was broken. In response to a question from plaintiff's counsel, the ambulance attendant stated that he had been in the business for 13 years and had taken five to six people a week to mental institutions. He testified that he did not recall plaintiff trying to use the telephone and that he was not told to use a strait jacket to restrain her.
The parties are in substantial agreement as to what occurred at Ardmore Acres. Defendant requested permission to treat the plaintiff on several different occasions, and she refused. For six days, she was placed in the 'security room,' which was a bare room except for the bed. The windows of the room were covered with wire mesh. During five of the six days, plaintiff refused to eat, and at all times refused medication. Defendant telephoned orders to the hospital and prescribed certain medication. He visited her often during her stay.
When plaintiff arrived at the hospital she was refused permission to receive or place telephone calls, or to receive or write letters. Dr. Wolodzko conceded at the trial that plaintiff wished to contact her brother in Texas by telephone and that he forbade her to do so. After nine days, she was allowed to call her family, but no one else. Plaintiff testified on direct examination that once during her hospitalization she asked one of her children to call her relatives in Texas and that defendant took her to her room and told her, It is undisputed that plaintiff repeatedly requested permission to call an attorney and that Dr. Wolodzko refused such permission.
At one point when plaintiff refused medication, on the written orders of defendant, she was held by three nurses and an attendant and was forcibly injected with the medication. Hospital personnel testified at the trial that the orders concerning medication and deprivation of communication were pursuant to defendant's instructions.
Plaintiff, by chance, found an unlocked telephone near the end of her hospitalization and made a call to her relatives in Texas. She was released by court order on January 27, 1964.
Plaintiff filed suit alleging false imprisonment, assault and battery, and malpractice, against defendant Wolodzko, Anthony Smyk and Ardmore Acres. Defendants Ardmore Acres and Smyk were dismissed prior to trial. At the close of plaintiff's proofs, defendant moved for a directed verdict. The court granted the motion as to the count of malpractice only, but allowed the counts of assault and battery and false imprisonment to go to the jury. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $40,000. The court denied defendant's motion for judgment notwithstanding verdict, but granted a conditional order for a new trial unless a remittitur was filed for the excess above $30,000. The Court of Appeals 1 reversed the order for remittitur and reinstated the jury verdict of $40,000. We granted leave to appeal. 383 Mich. 794.
Defendant has raised five issues on appeal. The first issue is whether a jury could find defendant Wolodzko liable for assault and battery for treating plaintiff, who was temporarily hospitalized pursuant to M.C.L.A. 330.21, M.S.A. 14.811, after the plaintiff had refused such treatment?
Defendant contends that his treatment of plaintiff was required regardless of her consent because of the contract he had made with her husband to provide medical care for her. He implies that a husband has an...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fluellen v. US DEPT. OF JUSTICE DRUG ENF. ADMIN.
..."False imprisonment is the unlawful restraint of an individual's personal liberty or freedom of locomotion." Stowers v. Wolodzko, 386 Mich. 119, 134, 191 N.W.2d 355 (1971). Plaintiff's allegations, as cited above, are sufficient to state a claim of false imprisonment against officer The ele......
-
Pippen v. Denison, Division of Abex Corp.
...an abuse of discretion where the verdict was within the range of, and supported by, the proofs. See, for example, Stowers, v. Wolodzko, 386 Mich. 119, 191 N.W.2d 355 (1971); Stevens, supra; Majewski v. Nowicki,364 Mich. 698, 111 N.W.2d 887 (1961); and Soave Construction Co. v. Lind Asphalt ......
-
Precopio v. City of Detroit, Dept. of Transp.
...347 Mich. 606, 612, 81 N.W.2d 383 (1957); Stevens v. Edward C. Levy Co., 376 Mich. 1, 5, 135 N.W.2d 414 (1965); Stowers v. Wolodzko, 386 Mich. 119, 141-142, 191 N.W.2d 355 (1971); Moore v. Spangler, 401 Mich. 360, 372, 258 N.W.2d 34 (1977).8 GCR 517.1 acknowledges the "special opportunity" ......
-
Palenkas v. Beaumont Hosp.
...verdict for possible remittitur, a court should review the verdict in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. Stowers v. Wolodzko, 386 Mich. 119, 142, 191 N.W.2d 355 (1971). In Precopio v. Detroit, 415 Mich. 457, 464-465, 330 N.W.2d 802 (1982), this Court "[D]ecisions of this Court state......