York v. Daniels, 7101
| Decision Date | 08 May 1953 |
| Docket Number | No. 7101,7101 |
| Parties | YORK v. DANIELS. |
| Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
John R. Caslavka, Greenfield, Neale, Newman, Bradshaw, Freeman & Neale, Jean Paul Bradshaw, Harry G. Neale and Walter S. Pettit, Jr., Springfield, for appellant.
Joe W. Collins, Stockton, for respondent.
This is an action against a chiropractor for malpractice resulting in the death of plaintiff's wife. It was tried to a jury which returned a verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $5,000. From a judgment thereon, defendant has appealed. For clarity, we will refer to the parties hereafter as plaintiff and defendant, the roles they played in the trial court.
The negligence charged in the petition was that 'defendant failed and neglected to exercise the ordinary skill and care used by other chiropractors in said locality, in that said defendant negligently, carelessly and unskillfully manipulated her head and neck by taking hold of her head and neck and jerking, twisting, popping, pushing, rubbing, massaging and gouging her neck and head with such force and violence and in such a negligent, careless and unskillful manner that he injured the plaintiff's said wife's spinal menings (spinal cord coverings) in the area of the vertebrae consisting of the first three from the cervical spine, namely, the atlas (1st), the epistropheus or axis (2nd) and 3rd cervical vertebrae, resulting in intraspinal bleeding, compression of the spinal cord, spinal concussion, shock and death.'
It is earnestly and ably contended that plaintiff did not make a submissible case. In determining this question, this court must consider the whole evidence, giving plaintiff the benefit of all facts and circumstances favorable to or tending to support his theory of the case with every reasonable inference that may be drawn therefrom, as well as any evidence offered by defendant, and such inferences as are favorable to plaintiff and we will disregard any of defendant's evidence contradictory or unfavorable to plaintiff's contentions. Williamson v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo.Sup., 252 S.W.2d 295; Wofford v. St. Louis Public Service Co., Mo.Sup., 252 S.W.2d 529; Barton v. Farmers Ins. Exchange, Mo.App., 255 S.W.2d 451; Scott County Milling Co. v. Thompson, Mo.App., 255 S.W.2d 121.
The following definitions may be helpful:
The Cervical Vertebrae are the seven vertebrae of the neck, the first is named the Atlas, because it supports the globe of the head. The second cervical vertebra is named the Epistropheus or Axis, because it forms the pivot upon which the first vertebra carrying the head, rotates.
The Meninges are the three membranes that envelope the brain and spinal cord, including the Dura, Pia and Arachnoid.
Congenital means a condition present at birth.
An Aneurysm is a sac formation by the dilation of the walls of a blood vessel and filled with blood.
Pia Mater is the innermost and the most vascular of the three membranes of the brain and the spinal cord.
Vascular, as above used, means full of vessels.
A Pathologist is one learned in that branch of medicine, which treats of the essential nature of disease, especially of the structural and functional changes caused by disease.
Bearing in mind the rule of law above stated and these definitions, we will state the evidence accordingly.
Plaintiff and his wife lived at Stockton, Missouri and had lived there 12 years prior to the incident upon which this suit is based. Plaintiff was 35 years of age and the deceased was 31. They had three children, ages 9, 4 and 2, respectively. Their family physician was Dr. Wm. B. Richter of Stockton. On May 2, 1951, Mrs. York had a stiff neck. Her eyes were bothering her and she had occasional headaches. She went to Dr. Richter for consultation. He examined her and diagnosed her case as a muscular strain, or, as a layman would call it, 'a crick in the neck.' For that he advised applications of heat and for her eyes and headache, he advised her to procure spectacles. He made a thorough examination and found that, other than the symptoms above referred to, she was in good health. He had been the family physician for ten years, had delivered her three children and, during her pregnancies and at other times, had examined her rather frequently.
Later a neighbor recommended that she go to the defendant, Lee G. Daniels, a chiropractor located at Greenfield, for treatment of her stiff neck, eye trouble and headache. Five days after she had gone to her family doctor at Stockton, she, her husband and two of their children went to Greenfield to consult the defendant. Prior to this time, she had been doing all her housework and caring for their three children. When they arrived at Greenfield, they left the automobile, walked to the court house rest rooms, then back to the car, where the two children had remained. She picked up the youngest child, two years old, the husband the other and they walked across the street, each carrying out of the children, and into the defendant's office. After a few preliminary questions relative to their age, business and occupation, the chiropractor then asked Mrs. York about her trouble. She told him she had a stiff neck, had had it for several days, that her eyes bothered her, that she had occasional headaches and her family doctor had advised her to get glasses. She was instructed by the chiropractor to go into a dressing room and put on a gown, which she did, and returned to the 'adjusting' room.
The defendant then gave plaintiff and his wife, they being the only ones present, a long dissertation, or sales talk, on the theory of chiropractic, illustrating it by means of an artificial vertebra made of plastic or rubber. With this contraption he attempted to demonstrate how it was possible for a vertebra to become misplaced and pinch a nerve. He explained that in making adjustments the displaced vertebra must be moved quickly so as not to move the one below or above it. He likened it to a magician jerking a table cloth from a table so quickly that an article on the table would not be displaced.
He then had her lay face downward on a self-tripping (high-lo) table and told her that she had some misplaced vertebrae and proceeded to manipulate her spine proceeding upward to her neck. When he had gotten to that portion of her vertebra, he raised the table, to a perpendicular position, so she was standing facing it and asked her how far she could turn her head to the left and to the right. She demonstrated how far she could. She could turn it further to the right than to the left. Standing at her back and a little to her left side, he took hold of her head and neck and suddenly and violently jerked or turned it as far as he could. The neck popped and she screamed, and without releasing her, he then quickly and violently turned her head in the other direction. The neck again popped, she screamed again and cried, 'I'm falling, I'm falling.' After the chiropractor had jerked Mrs. York's head to the left and she had screamed, jerked it the other way and she had screamed again, and said she was falling, 'He kept saying: I will have to give her another treatment and bring her around.' He kept gouging her in the neck and punching her in the neck and rolling her head around. He would say: 'I never saw a person any more relaxed.' He kept gouging her in the neck.'
Her husband and the chiropractor then took hold of her and helped her to a chair, she couldn't hold up her head, her face and hands were numb, she couldn't use her feet and she began retching. The chiropractor got a wet towel and something for her to vomit in. Her husband asked her if she hurt anywhere and she said 'No.' But she was apparently in convulsions and it was necessary to hold her in the chair. The chiropractor then suggested that they take her back and lay her on a cot. This was done and it was necessary to hold her on the bed to prevent her from rolling off. She would try to reach her face with her hands but couldn't. She continued to vomit and seemed to have lost all control over her movements.
The chiropractor tried to cool her with wet towels, but she kept getting worse until they could hardly hold her on the bed, so the chiropractor said, 'I will go get a doctor.' He left through the back door, was gone approximately two minutes, came back and stated, 'The doctor will be right over.'
In a few minutes Dr. Lee A. McNeel came in the back way, looked at her eyes, felt of her pulse and said, 'Let's take her to a hospital as quick as we can get her there.' The plaintiff rather demurred to this procedure because he did not know what the doctor was going to do with her but the doctor said, 'We will have to take her right now.' They brought the ambulance around and the chiropractor wanted to take her out the back door but they could not get the stretcher out that way, so they took her out the front door and into the ambulance. After her arrival at the hospital, sehe didn't roll so much, but could only answer yes and no to questions, except she said she was numb all over. She seemed to be paralyzed. When she uttered a word, it produced vomiting. She was again asked if anything hurt her and said 'No.' Apparently she had lost her sight for she could not see her children who were brought in. The plaintiff went back to Stockton and got their oldest child and returned to the hospital where he stayed until 9 o'clock, then leaving upon the assurance of the nurses and doctor that his wife would be all right in the morning. The next morning at 6:45, he received a telephone call to come to the hospital at once. When he got there, his wife was dead.
After an interval, plaintiff went back to Greenfield to find the chiropractor, but was unsuccessful. The next day, he went back and still could not find him. Two or three days later, he went back and the chiropractor was still...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Steele v. Woods
...granting of a new trial, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings. STORCKMAN, P. J., and EAGER, J., concur. 1 York v. Daniels, 241 Mo.App. 809, 259 S.W.2d 109; Fenneren v. Smith, Mo., 316 S.W.2d 602; Peterson v. Tiona, Mo., 292 S.W.2d 581.2 The court sustained objection to question......
-
Listerman v. Day & Night Plumbing & Heating Service, Inc.
...709, 715, 72 A.L.R.2d 855, Kimmie v. Terminal R.R. Ass'n. of St. Louis, 334 Mo. 596, 605, 66 S.W.2d 561, 565(9); York v. Daniels, 241 Mo.App. 809, 833, 259 S.W.2d 109, 122(6).14 Scanlon v. Kansas City, 325 Mo. 125, 150, 28 S.W.2d 84, 95(15); State v. Quilling, 363 Mo. 1016, 1021, 256 S.W.2d......
-
Allen v. St. Louis Public Service Co.
...Service Co., 363 Mo. 474, 251 S.W.2d 663; Gray v. St. Louis-San Francisco Ry. Co., 363 Mo. 864, 254 S.W.2d 577. And see York v. Daniels, 241 Mo.App. 809, 259 S.W.2d 109, involving the records of an autopsy, which, of course, is in point as a clear analogy. A brief and instructive review of ......
-
Linton v. Carter
...City Terminal Ry. Co., 250 S.W.2d 999, 1007 (Mo. 1952);Kummer v. Cruz, 752 S.W.2d 801, 806-07 (Mo. App. E.D. 1988); York v. Daniels, 259 S.W.2d 109, 122-23 (Mo. App. 1953).B. The principle that litigants in a personal-injury case may present evidence of multiple, potential causes of an inju......