Vassey v. Burch, 7929SC543

• Decision Date: 19 February 1980
• Docket Number: No. 7929SC543,7929SC543
• Parties: Benny G. VASSEY v. William H. BURCH, M.D., Roy L. Morgan, M.D., and St. Luke's Hospital, Inc.
• Court: North Carolina Court of Appeals

Page 865

262 S.E.2d 865

45 N.C.App. 222

Benny G. VASSEY v. William H. BURCH, M.D., Roy L. Morgan, M.D., and St. Luke's

Hospital, Inc.

No. 7929SC543.

Court of Appeals of North Carolina.

Feb. 19, 1980.

Hamrick & Hamrick by J. Nat Hamrick, Rutherfordton, for plaintiff.

Hedrick, Parham, Helms, Kellam & Feerick by Richard T. Feerick, Charlotte, for defendant St. Luke's Hospital, Inc.

ROBERT M. MARTIN, Judge.

Plaintiff's sole assignment of error is that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment for defendant St. Luke's Hospital.

Defendant, in its motion for summary judgment, states that in support of its motion it is relying upon "various pleadings . . . including . . . verified answers to interrogatories served and filed with the court by the plaintiff." Plaintiff, in opposition to the motion, filed affidavits of himself, plaintiff's mother, plaintiff's attorney and Dr. Stewart Todd. Judge Riddle, in his order granting summary judgment for defendant, recites that "the pleadings in the action, affidavits, interrogatories and answers thereto . . ." were considered. However, these interrogatories and answers are not part of the record on appeal.

On its motion for summary judgment in order for the defendant, the moving party, to bear its burden of showing it was entitled to summary judgment, the defendant was required to present a forecast of the evidence which would be available at trial and which showed that there was no material issue of fact concerning an essential element of plaintiff's claim and that such element could not be proved by plaintiff through presentation of substantial evidence. Jenkins v. Theatres, Inc., 41 N.C.App. 262, 254 S.E.2d 776, petition for discretionary review denied 297 N.C. 698, 259 S.E.2d 295 (1979). See Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, Inc., 296 N.C. 467, 251 S.E.2d 419 (1979). In the present case, absent the answers to interrogatories on which defendant relied, we are unable to determine whether defendant's forecast is sufficient to meet its burden. It is the duty of the appellant to see that the record is properly made up and transmitted. Hill v. Hill, 13 N.C.App. 641, 186 S.E.2d 665 (1972). When the appealing party fails to include in the record on appeal all of the materials the trial court had before it in ruling on the motion for summary judgment, this Court is unable to say that the trial court erred in determining that there was no genuine issue as to any material fact. Leasing, Inc. v. Dan-Cleve Corp., 31 N.C.App. 634, 230 S.E.2d 559 (1976), petition for discretionary review denied, 292 N.C. 265, 233 S.E.2d 393 (1977).

Moreover, we note that on the basis of the record before this Court, plaintiff's argument that defendant was not entitled to summary judgment could not prevail. Assuming defendant, the moving party, met its burden on summary judgment, plaintiff, the opposing party, must assume the burden of producing a forecast of the evidence which would be available at trial to support his claim. Moore v. Fieldcrest Mills, supra.

In a claim for relief based on negligence, one of the parties must have been under a duty to conform to a certain standard of conduct and there must have been a breach of that duty. Jenkins v. Theatres, Inc., supra, W. Prosser, Torts § 30 (4th Ed. 1971). A nurse who undertakes to render professional services is under a duty to exercise reasonable care and diligence in the application of her knowledge and skill to the patient's case and to use her best judgment in the treatment and care of patients. Byrd v. Hospital, 202 N.C. 337, 162 S.E. 738 (1932). In an action for medical malpractice the burden of proof on the plaintiff is heavy. In order to recover for personal injury arising out of the furnishing of health care, the plaintiff must demonstrate by the testimony of a qualified expert that the care provided by defendant was not in accordance with the accepted standard of care in the community. Ballenger v. Crowell, 38 N.C.App. 50, 247 S.E.2d 287 (1978); N.C.Gen.Stat. § 90-21.12. We will, therefore, examine plaintiff's affidavits to determine whether they show the accepted standard of nursing care in the community and whether the care provided by the nurses was in negligent violation of that standard.

The affidavit of Dr. Stewart Todd states

That in the State of North Carolina it is accepted medical practice that if a patient comes into your office complaining of severe pains in the right lower quadrant of his abdomen, running a fever and vomiting, he should be checked for appendicitis, a white blood count should be taken, his abdomen should be examined, and particularly the right lower quadrant should be examined to see whether or not it is tender.

Although the affidavit of Dr. Stewart Todd may be sufficient to establish the accepted standard of medical care for a doctor in his office, it does not establish the standard of care for a nurse in a hospital. Plaintiff's affidavit states that the nurse called plaintiff's family physician, Dr. Morgan, and "advised him of plaintiff's complaints." Similarly plaintiff's mother's affidavit states that the nurse "conversed extensively" with Dr. Morgan. There is no allegation that the nurse did not accurately inform the doctor of plaintiff's actual symptoms. On the contrary, paragraph 23(a) of plaintiff's verified complaint states that Dr. Morgan was told that plaintiff was "suffering from a severe abdominal pain and vomiting." Plaintiff has not claimed that the conduct of the nurses in calling the family physician, in advising the physician of plaintiff's complaints and in following the doctor's instructions was in negligent violation of accepted standards of medical practice in the community.

The gist of plaintiff's contention that the nurse or nurses were negligent is that they failed to recognize the possibility of appendicitis and failed to report this possibility to Dr. Morgan. We point out, however, that "(t)he law contemplates that the physician is solely responsible for the diagnosis and treatment of his patient. Nurses are not supposed to be experts in the technique(s) of diagnosis or the mechanics of treatment." Byrd v. Hospital, 202 N.C. at 341-42, 162 S.E. at 740. There is no expert testimony to the effect that a nurse on the basis of the symptoms of severe abdominal pain and vomiting could not reasonably conclude that plaintiff was suffering from flu, gastroenteritis or numerous other stomach ailments rather than appendicitis. Nor is there any evidence that the nurse did not exercise her best judgment in concluding that it was not appendicitis. The mere fact ...