Suburban Hospital Ass'n v. Mewhinney, 162

• Decision Date: 29 January 1963
• Docket Number: No. 162,162
• Citation: 187 A.2d 671,230 Md. 480
• Parties: SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Flora D. MEWHINNEY.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

Page 480

230 Md. 480

187 A.2d 671

SUBURBAN HOSPITAL ASSOCIATION, INC. v. Flora D. MEWHINNEY.

No. 162.

Court of Appeals of Maryland.

Jan. 29, 1963.

Joseph B. Simpson, Jr., Rockville (Vivian V. Simpson, H. Algire McFaul and Simpson & Simpson, Rockville, on the brief), for appellant.

James E. Hogan (Arthur J. Hilland and Ferdinand J. Mack, Rockville, on the brief), for appellee.

Before HENDERSON, HAMMOND, PRESCOTT, HORNEY and MARBURY, JJ.

MARBURY, Judge.

In this malpractice case the appeal is from a judgment after denial of motions for a directed verdict and for a judgment n. o. v. on behalf of the appellant, defendant below, by the Circuit Court for Montgomery County (Shure, J.). Appellant had made a motion for directed verdict at the close of the appellee's (plaintiff below) case, which was denied by the lower court. After putting on its case, appellant then renewed its motion on the ground that no evidence legally sufficient to sustain a verdict for the plaintiff had been offered. The motion at the close of all the evidence was also over-ruled. Upon return by the jury of a verdict in favor of the appellee for $4,000, a motion for judgment n. o. v. was filed, which was denied and judgment entered on the verdict.

The facts are not in dispute. The appellee suffered on October 24, 1956, a severe laceration of her left hand by a broken test tube in the course of her employment as a laboratory technician. The laceration was at the base of the proximal phalanx of her left index finger. She applied a sterile towel to the wound to control the bleeding and then proceeded to Suburban Hospital, in company with one of her co-workers, Hannah Waters, for further treatment. They arrived at the emergency room of the hospital in about fifteen minutes and were met by the nurse in charge of the emergency room, who directed her to a stretcher in the room. Within a few minutes, a Dr. DeJesus, the medical resident on duty, arrived. He was a native of the Philippine Islands, and received most of his medical training in that country, although he had previously served an internship at St. Francis Hospital, New York, N. Y. The appellee told Dr. DeJesus she believed she had cut the tendon in her finger and that she wanted him to check it to see if this had happened. She further told him that if the tendon was cut, she did not want the wound sutured, because she wanted the tendon to be taken care of immediately. She repeated this several times, the doctor only signifying his answer by saying 'it's O. K.' The doctor treated the wound by injecting novocain and proceeded to clean up and close in by means of black silk thread sutures. The appellee and Mrs. Waters both testified as to not being able to understand what Dr. DeJesus was saying because of his accent. After treatment, the appellee was told by a nurse to see a Dr. Abramson in three days. The emergency room record of her treatment includes a diagnosis of 'laceration left index finger' only and does not mention a severed tendon.

Dr. Abramson saw the appellee at the stated time and diagnosed severed tendons. From October 27, 1956, until March 25, 1957, she received treatment at frequent times by Dr. Abramson at his office and at the hospital. On March 25, 1957, the appellee underwent a tendon graft operation by Dr. Abramson at Georgetown University Hospital. After several months of treatment, physiotherapy, and a second operation it was determined that the treatment was not successful, and on June 10, 1959, a Dr. Frey performed an arthrodesis, or fusion of a joint, which for all practical purposes rendered the finger completely rigid beyond the joint at the base of the finger. Mrs. Mewhinney was left-handed.

To properly understand the appellee's claim of negligence in the trial below, it is necessary to set forth the proper medical treatment of the injury sustained by the appellee, as brought out by expert testimony in the trial. Dr. Abramson testified on cross-examination that the usual treatment for a severed sublimis tendon and profundus tendon is to close the wound at the first treatment and at a later date, re-open the hand and attempt a tendon graft in order to restore the tendons to a usable state. The waiting period varies from three weeks to six months, or longer. Another surgeon, Dr. Johnson, an expert witness for the appellant, agreed that this method is the preferred or 'majority rule' treatment. On...