Ricks v. Budge case brief summary
64 P.2d 208 (1937)
CASE FACTS
The physician hospitalized and treated the patient for an infected finger. Against the physician's advice, the patient left the hospital. The physician instructed the patient to return for further treatment if the infection worsened. When the infection worsened, the physician examined the patient and told him to return to the hospital. Once at the hospital, the physician refused to treat the patient because of a previously owed bill. The patient was operated on at another hospital and his finger was eventually amputated. The patient brought a medical malpractice against the physician and partners for negligence and the refusal to treat. The trial court granted the physician and partners' directed verdict motion.
DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the portion of the trial court's decision that granted the physician and partners' directed verdict motion on the issue of negligent care and discharge. The court reversed the portion of the trial court's decision that granted the physician and partners' motion for a directed verdict on the issue of refusal to treat. The court remanded the cause for a new trial.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
64 P.2d 208 (1937)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff patient sought
review of the decision of the District Court, Second District, Weber
County (Utah), which granted the motion for a directed verdict filed
by defendants, physician and partners in a clinic, in the patient's
medical malpractice action for alleged negligence and refusal to
treat.CASE FACTS
The physician hospitalized and treated the patient for an infected finger. Against the physician's advice, the patient left the hospital. The physician instructed the patient to return for further treatment if the infection worsened. When the infection worsened, the physician examined the patient and told him to return to the hospital. Once at the hospital, the physician refused to treat the patient because of a previously owed bill. The patient was operated on at another hospital and his finger was eventually amputated. The patient brought a medical malpractice against the physician and partners for negligence and the refusal to treat. The trial court granted the physician and partners' directed verdict motion.
DISCUSSION
- The court affirmed the portion of the trial court's decision on the negligence issue and held that the physician's initial treatment was proper and that the physician advised the patient to stay in the hospital.
- The court reversed and remanded the trial court's decision on the refusal to treat issue because the physician, upon undertaking the operation during the patient's second admission, was under a duty to continue his attention as long as the case required.
CONCLUSION
The court affirmed the portion of the trial court's decision that granted the physician and partners' directed verdict motion on the issue of negligent care and discharge. The court reversed the portion of the trial court's decision that granted the physician and partners' motion for a directed verdict on the issue of refusal to treat. The court remanded the cause for a new trial.
Suggested Study Aids and Books
No comments:
Post a Comment