Wood v. Barker

• Decision Date: 18 October 1882
• Citation: 49 Mich. 295,13 N.W. 597
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court
• Parties: WOOD v. BARKER.

13 N.W. 597

49 Mich. 295

WOOD v. BARKER.

Supreme Court of Michigan

October 18, 1882

There is no presumption of law as to the value of a surgeon's services, nor that a jury can ascercertain their value without testimony from persons knowing something about it. Nor has a jury a right to reduce the compensation claimed for such services where undisputed testimony shows it to have been appropriate, and on their own unsupported notions that the treatment adopted should have been different.

A jury has no right to ignore testimony that has not been discredited, and form independent conclusions, without testimony, on matters that require proof beyond their conjectures or opinions.

The fact that a surgeon changes a course of treatment adopted by another does not in itself show that the former course of treatment was not proper at the time; nor is the patient's failure to recover perfect soundness of limb in itself evidence of malpractice, nor is the fact that he survived, although he refused to allow a particular course of treatment, evidence that such course might not have been proper under the circumstances.

The jury in an action for the value of surgical services has no right to find malpractice without testimony from persons who are qualified to give opinions on the methods of treatment.

Error to Chippewa.

Charles S. Cushman and W.S. Humphrey, for plaintiff and appellant.

Geo. W Brown, for defendant.

CAMPBELL J.

Plaintiff who is a surgeon, sued defendant on his promise to pay for professional services rendered to one Murray, who had been injured by a blast, so that both legs were badly crushed below the knee. Plaintiff was called in as counsel to aid the attending surgeon Dr. Harding, shortly after the accident at Sault St. Marie. The left leg was amputated, and they were both of opinion that amputation of the other was expedient by reason of the extensive comminuted fracture of the bones and laceration involving injury to an artery, to prevent extreme danger of death. The opposition of Murray to this prevented the amputation and the limb was ultimately saved but not entirely restored to its original condition. Some time after the plaintiff had ceased his visits and while the case was in the hands of Dr. Harding aided by a nurse, Dr. Jessop of Mackinaw came over and was employed to treat the patient in connection with Dr. Harding. The only medical testimony in the case was given by plaintiff and Dr. Harding. Dr. Jessop was not sworn. The employment by defendant seems to have been shown, and the questions on which the controversy appears to have turned were the value of the services and the propriety of the treatment.

It is to be observed that there is no conflict of testimony whatever in regard to the fact of the work and attendance of plaintiff, and no testimony which did not leave a considerable sum due...