Woodson v. Huey

• Decision Date: 23 June 1953
• Docket Number: No. 34911,34911
• Citation: Woodson v. Huey, 261 P.2d 199 (Okla. 1953)
• Parties: WOODSON et al. v. HUEY.
• Court: Oklahoma Supreme Court

Page 199

261 P.2d 199

1953 OK 195

WOODSON et al. v. HUEY.

No. 34911.

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

June 23, 1953.

Rehearing Denied Sept. 22, 1953.

Syllabus by the Court.

1. A doctor, though an expert and though he performs without negligence, who violates the instructions of his patient on the use of a method of anesthetizing is in law an assaulter and liable for whatever damages proximately flow from the administration of the type of anesthetic administered.

2. The controlling surgeon in a surgery case who chooses the anesthetist, an expert in his own right, and who promises that a spinal block as an anesthetic will not be given does not thereby become an insurer against the administration of such anesthetic but will be an assaulter unless he does what can be reasonably expected of him under the circumstances to prevent the administration of a type of anesthetic specifically objected to by the patient.

3. Where the evidence on the point is conflicting and reasonable men might draw differing conclusions therefrom the question of proximate cause is one for the jury.

4. Where there is competent evidence reasonably tending to sustain a judgment against a defendant, and no substantial fundamental errors prejudicial to his rights are revealed by the record, the judgment will be affirmed.

F. C. Swindell and A. D. Mason, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error, Andre B. Carney.

Hudson, Hudson & Wheaton, Tulsa, for plaintiff in error, Fred E. Woodson.

Allen & Allen, Tulsa, Green, Farmer & Woolsey, Tulsa, for defendant in error.

JOHNSON, Justice.

Esther Huey obtained a judgment based on a jury verdict in the amount of $60,000 against Fred E. Woodson and Andre B. Carney in the District Court of Tulsa County; from order overruling the separate motions for new trial of each defendant this appeal is brought.

In support of the allegations of her petition plaintiff's evidence tends to show that she consulted her family doctor, Dr. Ungerman, about a pain in her side; that he diagnosed the condition as a chronic appendix which should be removed and referred her to Dr. Andre B. Carney, a surgeon; that she went to Dr. Carney who confirmed the diagnosis and advised surgery; that she asked Dr. Carney who would give the anesthetic; that he told her he ordinarily recommended Dr. Woodson, which recommendation she agreed to follow; that she asked what kind of anesthetic would be used; that he told her a spinal anesthetic would probably be test; that she stated she was afraid of a spinal block and did not want one; that he told her he had had one himself and considered it very satisfactory but she still contended she did not want a spinal block; that he told her in that case she would not be given a spinal block but would be given a general anesthetic instead; that at the time she first came to Dr. Carney's office she was a healthy woman, 30 years of age married, with one child, in good physical condition except for the chronic appendix; that she entered the hospital on the evening of May 20, 1946; that the operation was scheduled for 8:00 a. m. May 21st; that she was given the routine skin tests and certain other preparations necessary prior to an abdominal operation; that she noticed she was not given an enema as was her roommate who was also being prepared for an abdominal operation; that she inquired of the nurse the reason therefor and was told by the nurse that as she was Dr. Carney's patient she would probably be given a spinal anesthetic; that she told the nurse she did not want a spinal block and asked the nurse to call Dr. Carney and tell him; that the nurse said she was too busy to call; that she asked the nurse to call her husband but the nurse said she was too busy to call any one; that plaintiff then called her husband and asked him to call Dr. Carney and ask that she not be given a spinal block; that about twenty minutes later Dr. Ray, Dr. Carney's assistant, came to her room and asked her what was this he heard about her not wanting a spinal block; that he told plaintiff not to worry that she was going to have a general anesthetic and not a spinal block; that the next morning she was given a shot of morphine and was then taken to the operating room; that when she arrived in the operating room she was hazy and groggy; that she was placed on the operating table; that a nurse was standing to her right and Dr. Woodson, whom she had not theretofore met, was standing on her left; that Dr. Carney was not in the operating room during the time she was conscious; that the nurse told her to turn in her right side; that she had never before had any type of operation or been in an operating room; that she knew nothing of the procedure of an operating room or how anesthetics were given; that she obeyed the orders of the nurse and turned on her right side; that the nurse placed one hand beneath her knees and the other at the back of her neck and pulled plaintiff into a bowed position; that the nurse held plaintiff in this position; that she felt a sting in the spine; that there was no further conversation with the nurse; that she did not talk to Dr. Woodson at all; that after she felt the sting in her back she felt a grating sensation and pains went down her legs, things and feet; that she heard Dr. Woodson say to the nurse, 'That must be just in the side'; that immediately after he had this the nurse gave plaintiff a shot in her right arm and she went to sleep; that when she awoke the was back in her hospital room, which was semi-private; that before she became fully and continuously conscious three days later she had had one or two short periods of consciousness; that from the time she became fully conscious she had heavy, cutting pains in her body from the hips down; that she could not move any part of her body from the belt line down; that the pain has never ceased from the date of the operation to the date of trial; that she was in the hospital for 100 days; that she was never able nor did she attempt to walk unassisted after the operation, although on the 5th or 6th day after the operation she attempted to walk assisted by two nurses but could not move her legs or feet at all; that the nurses lost their grip on her and she fell to the floor; that she could not get up; that the nurses called the doctor on the floor who picked her up in his arms and placed her back on the bed; that after that she attempted to walk several times assisted by nurses and crutches; that she left the hospital on August 28, 1946, and returned to her home; that since that date she has been unable to move unassisted by crutches or braces; that Dr. Carney continued to treat her after she left the hospital and braces for her legs were made under his direction; that when the braces are removed her feet drop completely down and she is unable to raise them or control them in any manner; that since the operation she has no control over her bowel movements and has incontinence of the bladder, necessitating the wearing of protection at all times to absorb the leakage from ehr bladder and bowels; that before the operation she could attend to all her household duties but since the operation she could not.

Dr. Carney, called as a witness by the plaintiff, testified that she told him on her first visit to him that she did not want a spinal block and he told her he would recommend that she not be given one but be given a general anesthetic; that plaintiff chose the date she wished to be operated on and he called the hospital and made the arrangements; that he instructed the hospital to put on her chart that the...