Tramutola v. Bortone

• Decision Date: 07 May 1973
• Parties: Josephine TRAMUTOLA and Fred N. Tramutola, her husband, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Frank BORTONE, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellants, and The Berthold S. Pollak Hospital for Chest Diseases, Defendant.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

Page 9

63 N.J. 9

304 A.2d 197

Josephine TRAMUTOLA and Fred N. Tramutola, her husband, Plaintiffs-Respondents, v. Frank BORTONE, M.D., et al., Defendants-Appellants, and The Berthold S. Pollak Hospital for Chest Diseases, Defendant.

Supreme Court of New Jersey.

Argued Jan. 22, 1973.

Decided May 7, 1973.

Joseph T. Ryan, Jersey City, for defendants-appellants Hazel Olga Elwood and Jerome J. Rose, co-executors of the Estate of Benjamin Elwood (Lamb, Blake, Hutchinson & Dunne, Jersey City, attorneys; William J. Cleary, Jr., Jersey City, on the brief).

Daniel K. Van Dorn, Newark, for defendant-appellant Dr. Frank Bortone (Gleeson, Hansen & Pantages, Newark, attorneys).

Morris Brown, Perth Amboy, for plaintiffs-respondents Josephine Tramutola and Fred N. Tramutola (Wilentz, Goldman & Spitzer, Perth Amboy, attorneys; Gene O'Donnell, Perth Amboy, on the brief).

The opinion of the Court was delivered by

JACOBS, J.

The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment of liability against the defendants Bortone and Elwood but modified the apportionment of damages. 118 N.J.Super. 503, 288 A.2d 863 (1972). Thereafter we granted a petition by Elwood for certification. 60 N.J. 513, 291 A.2d 374 (1972).

In 1959 the plaintiff Josephine Tramutola was being treated at the Bayonne Hospital for a kidney condition. While there chest x-rays were taken, disclosing a shadow over the right lung area. She was referred by her treating doctor to Dr. Benjamin Elwood whom she duly consulted. Dr. Elwood examined her and arranged for her admittance to the Pollak Hospital for further examination. Her condition was diagnosed as a bronchiectasis and she continued under Dr. Elwood's care and treatment. In due course Dr. Elwood consulted with Dr. Frank Bortone, Pollak's Chief Thoracic Surgeon, and then recommended to Mrs. Tramutola that she undergo an operation described as a lobectomy, to be performed by Dr. Bortone. She agreed and on April 28, 1960 Dr. Bortone performed a right middle lobectomy on her at Pollak Hospital. Dr. Elwood did not attend the operation. Post-operative x-rays were taken at the hospital and after Mrs. Tramutola was discharged she continued with visits at Dr. Elwood's office for post-operative treatment.

During her visits at Dr. Elwood's office she repeatedly complained of a sharp pain in her chest above the breast. Dr. Elwood took x-rays and fluroscopes and told her that the pain was muscular and would clear up. Her visits were first monthly and later semi-annually. Her last visit was in November 1964 and shortly before she was due for another visit in 1965 Dr. Elwood died. Her pain continued and in November 1965 she consulted Dr. Theodore Talbot, an internist in Staten Island. He took x-rays and informed her that there was a metallic object in her chest. Apparently a suturing needle used towards the close of the operation had broken off and part remained in her. Dr. Talbot conferred with Drs. Chamberlain and Rose and thereafter Mrs. Tramutola was admitted to St. Vincent's Hospital where a bronchoscopy was performed in an unsuccessful attempt to remove the needle. After further consultation, Dr. Talbot recommended that no surgical operation be performed to remove the needle since the risk would not be warranted. He advised Mrs. Tramutola to see him every six months so that he could determine whether there had been any movement in the location of the needle. He prescribed medication for her pain and, though the pain continues, no operative efforts to remove the needle are contemplated.

In 1966 Mrs. Tramutola, joined by her husband Fred N. Tramutola, filed her complaint in the Superior Court against Dr. Bortone, the Estate of Dr. Elwood and the Pollak Hospital, along with others not material here. She charged them with negligence resulting in her injury and sought compensatory damages. During the trial she testified extensively as to her medical history and her continuing pain. Dr. David Graubard, her medical expert, expressed the opinion that the needle was causing the pain. He testified, as noted by the Appellate Division (118 N.J.Super. at 510--511, 288 A.2d 863), that the x-rays taken at Pollak Hospital following the operation revealed that the front portion of a surgical needle used for suturing was located in the vicinity of the right bronchus in the hilar region, that the needle had become encapsulated by scar tissue, causing the surrounding tissue to become rigid, and that when Mrs. Tramutola made certain movements of her body, the rigid tissue produced a pulling sensation on other organs in the area, causing pain. Dr. Lawrence I. Kaplan, a licensed physician specializing in psychiatry and neurology, also testified on Mrs. Tramutola's behalf. He was permitted, above objection, to state the medical history given to him. He expressed the opinion that she was suffering from 'a chronic anxiety and depressive reaction, which is an emotional reaction and a mood disturbance related to the difficulties which she had following this operation, particulary to the knowledge, the awareness of a retained metallic fragment and the prospect, although not a certain one, of a potential surgical procedure in the future.' See 118 N.J.Super. at 514, 288 A.2d 863.

The defense testimony consisted of a deposition by Dr. Talbot and oral trial testimony by Dr. Henry Reich. Dr. Talbot expressed the opinion that the area where the needle was imbedded was insensitive and that pain could not emanate from it; his view was that Mrs. Tramutola's pain was due to the lobectomy rather than the presence of the needle. 118 N.J.Super. at 510, 288 A.2d 863. Dr. Reich acknowledged that part of a surgical needle must have broken off during the operation and become buried in the hilar region; however, he testified that it had become encapsulated and would cause no pain. 118 N. J.Super. at 511, 288 A.2d 863. At the close of all the testimony and before summations the Pollak Hospital settled with the plaintiffs for $7,500. Without revealing the settlement, the trial judge submitted the cause to the jury which returned a verdict of $65,000 in favor of Mrs. Tramutola and $5,000 in favor of Mr. Tramutola, against all three defendants, namely, Dr. Bortone, Dr. Elwood's Estate and the Pollak Hospital. The trial judge apportioned the judgment in equal amounts, one-third payable by Dr. Bortone, one-third by Dr. Elwood's Estate, and the remaining third having been satisfied by the Pollak Hospital's settlement with the plaintiffs. 118 N.J.Super. at 518--519, 288 A.2d 863. Motions by Dr. Bortone and Dr. Elwood's Estate for a new trial were denied and thereafter they appealed to the Appellate Division.

In the Appellate Division Dr. Bortone did not question the jury's finding of liability, nor could he in the light of the undisputed evidence in the record. See Sanzari v. Rosenfeld, 34 N.J. 128, 140, 167 A.2d 625 (1961). No testimony on his part was introduced at the trial and his later attack was confined to the jury's finding of damages. The Appellate Division properly rejected this attack and the only item worthy of mention at this juncture relates to the ruling with respect to Dr. Kaplan's testimony. 118 N.J.Super. at 513--516, 288 A.2d 863. Mrs. Tramutola had preceded Dr. Kaplan on the witness stand and had testified with respect to her medical history and her current complaints. When his direct testimony began Dr. Kaplan explained that a neuropsychiatric examination generally consists of 'an appraisal of the patient's mental status and an evaluation of the various functions of the nervous system by certain tests.' The appraisal 'is made by interview chiefly' during which a history is obtained and during which the patient's responses to inquiries and his total attitude and demeanor are considered 'pertinent to an evaluation of the patient's emotional or mental status.' Dr. Kaplan interviewed Mrs. Tramutola and before giving his opinion as to her present mental and emotional condition he was allowed to state the history she gave him, not for the purpose of establishing the truth of her statement, but for the nonhearsay purpose of setting forth the matters on which the Doctor's opinion was based. See People v. Brown, 49 Cal.2d 577, 320 P.2d 5, 10--11 (1958); Gentry v. Watkins-Carolina Trucking Company, 249 S.C. 316, 154 S.E.2d 112, 117 (1967); Cf. State v. Maik, 60 N.J. 203, 208, 287 A.2d 715 (1972); State v. McGill, 101 Ariz. 320, 419 P.2d 499, 500 (1966). Surely the trial court did not exceed its discretion in allowing the testimony for that purpose (McCormick, Evidence 692--94 (2d ed. 1972); VI Wigmore, Evidence § 1720 (3d ed. 1940); Report of the New Jersey Supreme Court Committee on Evidence 174--175 (1963) and, in any event, there was no material prejudice since Mrs. Tramutola had herself given the same medical history on the witness stand and was duly subjected to cross-examination. 118...