Case Title: Lucas v. Pearce

Citation: 223 Kan. 749, 576 P.2d 670

Docket Number: 49,141

State: kansas

Court: Kansas Supreme Court

Date: 1978-04-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
223 Kan. 749 (1978)
576 P.2d 670
VERNETTE K. LUCAS, Appellee,
v.
E.W.J. PEARCE, M.D., and DRS. GILL, HOBSON & PEARCE, P.A., Appellants.
No. 49,141

Supreme Court of Kansas.
Opinion filed April 1, 1978.
John J. Alder, of Alder & Zemites, of Overland Park, argued the cause, and Donald L. Zemites, Leslie A. White, W.E. Winbigler, Bryan E. Nelson, Darrell D. Waird, and Douglas C. McKenna, all of the same firm, were with him on the brief for the appellants.
Thomas W. Brooks, of Overland Park, argued the cause, and Virginia E. Brooks, of Overland Park, was with him on the brief for the appellee.
Per Curiam:
This is an appeal from a jury verdict on a medical malpractice case wherein plaintiff was awarded $96,000.00 for her damages and an additional $15,000.00 on behalf of her husband. Various defendants were named in the original action but, by various means, the ranks were thinned down to Dr. E.W.J. Pearce and the professional association of which he was a member.
The plaintiff was having problems with pelvic pain. Dr. Pearce, a gynecologist, was her treating physician and she was admitted to a hospital on January 24, 1972, for treatment. She was 27 years old at the time of her admission. Dr. Pearce recommended a total abdominal hysterectomy including a bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy. This involves removal, through an abdominal incision, of her uterus, cervix, both ovaries and both Fallopian tubes. The operation was performed on January 25, 1972, and the plaintiff was discharged on February 2, 1972, with her condition being described as "good." After surgery she complained of a vaginal "sticking" sensation and dyspareunia (pain during sexual intercourse). Dr. Pearce advised these problems would go away in time. Plaintiff's husband testified that in June of 1974 his penis was lacerated during sexual relations with the plaintiff. In the summer of 1974 plaintiff was examined by another gynecologist and was scheduled for surgery. She then sought another opinion from a third gynecologist. Her condition was diagnosed as being caused by autosutures that had been used in her hysterectomy to close her vaginal cuff. Autosutures are, in essence, metal staples. *750 They are used in lieu of stitches and are supposed to close in a "B" shape. Some of these sutures were in plaintiff with the points sticking outward. A gynecologist attempted removal in his office but was unable to do so because of pain experienced by plaintiff. Thirteen staples were surgically removed in August, 1974. X-rays revealed there were more staples present than were removed, but they could not be located without substantial injury to tissue, which was felt not to be warranted. The remaining staples may ultimately have to be removed if they cause difficulty. This action resulted.
Numerous points of error are raised on appeal. The defendants challenge the sufficiency of the evidence in a number of areas. As in Tatro v. Lueken, 212 Kan. 606, 512 P.2d 529, evidence was presented that supported the contentions of the plaintiff and of the defendants. In Tatro the following general rules were set forth:
There was substantial competent evidence to establish that the use of autosutures in tissues that are elastic such as those in a vagina is beyond the standard of care in the community. There was evidence of lack of expertise in the use of the "staple gun" by Dr. Pearce. Likewise, there was sufficient evidence to establish a causal relationship between the autosutures in her body and plaintiff's dyspareunia and resulting remedial surgery.
The defendants challenge the qualifications of plaintiff's expert, Dr. Kapstrom, to testify. The trial court has discretion to determine the qualifications of an expert witness and to determine the admissibility of the testimony (Borth v. Borth, 221 Kan. 494, 561 P.2d 408). No abuse of discretion is shown.
The defendants claim error in permitting the testimony of *751 female patients who had had similar surgery performed by Dr. Pearce with autosutures prior to plaintiff's surgery and similar resulting problems. This was offered to show notice to Dr. Pearce of the complications from the use of autosutures and a limiting instruction was given. There was no error in the admission of this evidence for the limited purpose of notice.
The most serious claim of error is the failure of the trial court to instruct the jury on the contentions of the parties and to define the issues. The manufacturer of the "staple gun" and staples was a defendant at trial and a defendant's verdict was returned in its favor. The following instruction was given as to the issues between plaintiff and this defendant:
INSTRUCTION NO. 14
1. Breach of duty to test the product;
2. Breach of duty to warn.
3. That the plaintiff was injured;
No comparable instruction was given as to the issues between plaintiff and appellants.
The following instructions were given:
INSTRUCTION NO. 5
INSTRUCTION NO. 8
INSTRUCTION NO. 9
INSTRUCTION NO. 10
No objection was made during trial concerning the failure to give an instruction comparable to Instruction 14, but relating to the issues between plaintiff and defendant physicians. The missing instruction issue was raised for the first time in appellants' motion for new trial. On this issue the trial court concluded:
Attention is directed to K.S.A. 60-251 pertaining to jury instructions as follows:
See also K.S.A. 60-2105 as follows:
Clearly, the failure to give the issues instruction was error. In carefully reviewing the record, however, we find that substantial justice was done under the totality of the circumstances herein and that the error was not reversible or prejudicial error.
*754 Various other points of error are raised. We have examined each of these contentions and find no error. The request for reassessment of costs is considered and denied.
The judgment is affirmed.