Case ID: ohio-law-abs_3/html/0170-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "SULLIVAN, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

No. 270
    VAN PELT v. BEACH
    Ohio Appeals, 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Co.
    No. 5264.
    Decided Nov. 3, 1924.
    921. PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS— Malpractice against physician can be sustained only by proof that work or operation was done in negligent way.
    Published only in Ohio Law Abstract
    Attorneys—David P Bowden, for Van Pelt; Boyd, Cannon, Brooks & Wickham, for Beach. All of Cleveland.
    NOTE—For fuller statement of this case see OS Pending Case, 3 Abs. 67.
   SULLIVAN, J.

Epitomized Opinion

Van Pelt brought an action against Dr. Beach, a practicing physician, for malpractice. The plaintiff claimed that the physician or surgeon was employed to perform an operation upon her and in so doing an electric cau-tery was used and in using the same burned various portions of her body beyond the area of the diseased portion. No medical testimony was offered to show lack of skill or incompetency in performing an operation by the plaintiff except the testimony of the surgeon whose testimony exonerated himself in every way. The court directed a verdict for defendant, whereupon plaintiff prosecuted error. In sustaining the judgment of the lower court the court of appeals held:

1. An action against a physician for malpractice can be sustained only by proof of his negligence, and the burden of such proof rests upon him who asserts it.