Wojciechowski v. Coryell

• Decision Date: 06 January 1920
• Docket Number: No. 15712.,15712.
• Citation: 217 S.W. 638
• Parties: WOJCIECHOWSKI v. CORYELL.
• Court: Missouri Court of Appeals

217 S.W. 638

WOJCIECHOWSKI v. CORYELL.

No. 15712.

St. Louis Court of Appeals. Missouri.

January 6, 1920.

Rehearing Denied January 22, 1920.

Appeal from St. Louis Circuit Court; Wm. T. Jones, Judge.

"Not to be officially Published."

Action by Michael F. Wojciechowski against John B. Coryell. From a judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

Watts, Gentry & Lee, of St. Louis, for appellant.

Joseph A. Wright, of St. Louis, for respondent.

ALLEN, J.

This is an action against a physician for damages alleged to have been suffered by plaintiff through the negligence and unskillfulness of the defendant in regard to the setting of fractured bones of plaintiff's leg. The petition, after alleging that defendant is a physician and surgeon practicing his profession in the city of St. Louis, alleges than on March 14, 1914, plaintiff, while in the employ of a certain company, had his right leg broken about halfway between his foot and knee; that on the day mentioned defendant was employed, for a reasonable compensation to be paid him, to set plaintiff's leg and furnish the necessary treatment and medical attention in connection therewith; and that plaintiff, having confidence in the skill of defendant, consented to such employment. It is then alleged that pursuant to said employment defendant undertook to treat plaintiff, and that on March 18, 1914, he attempted to set plaintiff's broken leg, but that by reason of defendant's carelessness, negligence, and unskillfulness, plaintiff's leg was not properly set by defendant, in this, to wit:

"Defendant failed and neglected to set said fracture, and the broken bones of said leg in natural, normal alignment, and said broken bones in proper relation to each other, and defendant carelessly, negligently, and unskillfully treated the said broken leg thereafter, in that defendant carelessly, negligently and unskillfully permitted said fractured bones to remain in disalignment, and thereby grow together out of the normal and proper relation to each other, and also failed and neglected to splint said broken bones and leg, and failed and neglected to apply any other method or device to cause said fractured bones to unite in normal and usual alignment, and by reason of the aforesaid negligence,. carelessness, and unskillfulness of defendant said leg became crooked, crippled, and permanently deformed and unsightly, rendering him a cripple for life, permanently impairing his power of locomotion, and permanently diminishing his capacity to labor and his earnings therefrom."

This is followed by an ad damnum paragraph, with a prayer for judgment in the sum of $20,000.

The answer is a general denial.

The trial below, before the court and a jury, resulted in a verdict and judgment in plaintiff's favor in the sum of $3,000, and the case is here on defendant's appeal.

At the time of his injury plaintiff was employed by the Gerst Bros. Manufacturing Company, in the city of St. Louis, as a common laborer. He was then about 25 years of age. While assisting in taking some sheet steel from a railroad car and loading it upon a wagon, a sheet of the steel fell upon plaintiff's right leg, breaking it, causing a compound comminuted fracture of the bones— i. e., of the tibia and fibula—and inflicting lacerations or wounds. This occurred a little before 8 o'clock on Saturday morning, March 14, 1914. Plaintiff was immediately taken to the City Dispensary of the city of St. Louis, where he was given temporary treatment. According to plaintiff's testimony he was placed on an operating table, his clothing was removed from the leg, some iodine was put on the wounds, a slab of pine wood was placed against his leg, and the leg bandaged thereto by means of gauze. He was then taken to the City Hospital, reaching the latter place about 11 o'clock of that day. A physician at the hospital removed the bandage and splint which had been put on at the City Dispensary, put some more iodine upon the wounds, and again bandaged the leg, using a fresh bandage, but the same splint. On the following morning (Sunday) the leg was again dressed, a new splint being used; and later in the forenoon of that day plaintiff was removed to his home—i. e., to the home of his father in said city where he resided.

It appears that the Gerst Bros. Manufacturing Company, by whom plaintiff had been employed, arranged with plaintiff's father to send a physician to treat plaintiff, and sent the defendant, Dr. Coryell, to plaintiff's home for that purpose. The evidence is that the defendant reached plaintiff's home about 11 o'clock of the forenoon of the following day (Monday). Plaintiff testified that the defendant "felt the leg and shook his head"; that at defendant's suggestion it was agreed that plaintiff would be taken to St. Mary's Hospital; that defendant then said that he would call an ambulance, and have it at plaintiff's home about 1 o'clock of that day, but the ambulance did not in fact arrive until the afternoon of the following day (Tuesday); and that after waiting more than 24 hours for the ambulance to be sent by defendant, plaintiff's father or mother telephoned for an ambulance, which came promptly, arriving a few minutes before that summoned by defendant.

Plaintiff testified that about an hour after he arrived at St. Mary's Hospital defendant came to see him, took off the bandage and splint, put some more iodine on the injured leg and put a fresh bandage upon it, using, however, the same "slab" or splint. It appears that there were two wounds on the front of plaintiff's leg. Referring to the larger wound—the lower one—plaintiff said that it "just looked like the flesh was bursted open." Plaintiff testified positively that there was no wound on the back of his leg; that the flesh was not broken at the rear thereof; that the leg was swollen, but not "inflamed looking." The evidence shows that at the time of the trial two scars could be discerned upon the front of his leg, but that there was no scar on the rear thereof.

Plaintiff's version as to what subsequently occurred at the hospital is as follows:

Defendant called upon plaintiff on the following day (Wednesday), and "went through the same operations that he did the day before." On the following day (Thursday) an X-ray photograph was taken of the leg, with the splint and bandage thereupon, defendant not being present in the room where this was done, and after this had been accomplished defendant removed the splint and bandage, applied some more iodine, and put on a new bandage. On the following day (Friday) defendant took plaintiff into the operating room and undertook to set the bones of his leg. No anæsthetic was given plaintiff. Defendant called, to assist him, one Chris Hrastich, an employé of the hospital, who held plaintiff's left leg while defendant undertook to set the bones of his right leg. There was no traction used—i. e., no pulling of the injured leg—but defendant took hold of the leg and "kept twisting it around." Plaintiff was then returned to his room, and his injured leg was placed in an open "wire basket," which was filled with cotton; no splint was used, but a bandage was wrapped around the foot and the wire basket, and plaintiff was left in this condition. At this time plaintiff asked defendant "if there was any danger of blood poisoning," and defendant said, "No." No X-ray photograph of the leg was thereafter taken. No gauze was inserted in the wounds upon his leg, nor were any drain tubes inserted therein. The leg was never elevated, nor was any "traction" at any time applied thereto.

On the followng day (Saturday) defendant came to see plaintiff, but did nothing except to ask plaintiff how he felt; did not unwrap the bandage. Defendant did not see plaintiff Sunday, but called Monday, and merely asked him how he felt; and for a period of a week or ten days after the setting or attempted setting of the bones of plaintiff's leg, defendant did not unwrap the bandage or give the leg any treatment whatsoever. At the end of that period plaintiff complained to the defendant that the bandage, wrapped about the leg and the wire basket, had become loose, and defendant then tightened the bandage, and did not again remove the bandage, or do anything further by way of treatment, for a further period of about two weeks, when he removed the bandage, looked at the leg, and again put on the bandage. Thereafter nothing further was done by defendant in respect to treating plaintiff's leg until the 2d day of May, when he removed the bandage. At that time plaintiff told defendant that the leg did not "look very straight," to which defendant replied, "All that will turn out all right." Defendant told plaintiff to try to walk, but he found that he could not do so. Plaintiff left the hospital a few days later.

Plaintiff testified that he used crutches for about 2 months, and after that used a cane until the time of the trial. His right leg had become bent and deformed, the foot being turned inward, and shorter than his left leg. And he testified that at the time of the trial he suffered pain when he attempted to walk. In July of that year plaintiff consulted a Dr. Wolter, who gave him treatment to allay the pain, which, it is said, he was suffering.

Dr. Wolter, testifying in plaintiff's behalf, stated that he found plaintiff's leg deformed and shortened on account of a previous fracture; that repeated measurements showed that it had become shortened between an inch and a quarter and an inch and a half; that the leg was bent inward, and that there was a considerable enlargement "on account of deformity, because of an indirect reduction of the leg at the time of the fracture." This witness identified X-ray plates which had been made by him of plaintiff's leg. It appears that these plates showed that the ends of the bones of plaintiff's right leg, at the point of these fractures, were overlapping, and that there was a callous enlargement, due to a new...