The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1890-04-15
SUPREME JUDICIAL COURT.
BEFORE JUDGE WALTON.


MONDAY Roscoe Libby vs.. Frederick Henry
Gerrish This is an action to recover damages
placed in the writ at $4,000, against the defeud
practice In setting and Treating the pIaintiffs
October. 1887, felt and fractured his left leg in
two places between the middle and upper third
and In the lower third of the tibia or shin bone.
He sent for DIR. Sullivan, who came and placed
story, did not reduce the fractures, Saying he
would do so the next day. In the morning, how
ever, DR.. Gerrish was sent for. He set the leg
21st of october. The doctor called every day for
a.week and frequently afterward. On the .25th
is splint, made by saturating slips of cloth with
moist plaster Of paris and winding the limb; when
IT hardens or sets it makes stiff case. Plaintiff
condition TO have such splint applied; that the
leg was swollen and infsmed; that the pam was
in the morning and cut the plaster OF paris case
open IN order to relieve the pressure. Bandages
were then wrapped and tired around It and
another plaster of paris spint was ordered and
was applied some two, weeks lat
was swollen and painful This 6 6ea Wore d 5ms
the middle or last OF May. In the meantime the
doctor did not call more than two or three times.
The swelling went down in the leg and the plaster
case would become so loose that Il moved around
on the leg as he walked. He finally went to the
General Hospital and have an operation per-
ormed. On being asked what the operation
would consist of he said cutting open the leg at
the point OF fracture, breaking the bones apart,
scraping the edges, bringing them together again
and wiring or pegging them; that If he didn't do
ms ne would always have shackley leg" The
leg Is now an inch or more shorter than the other
leg. He claims that this condition is owing to the
neglect OF DR.. Gerrish either in setting or caring
for It afterwards. On cross examination the
plaintlff admitted that at one time he went to a
lawyer 70 get him to bring suit against DR..
Sullivan for malpractice and aJ that time does not
recollect thathe made any particular complaint
against DR.. Gerrish thinks he might have told
the lawyer at the last of it that he did not think
DR.. Gerrish attended it as he ought to- He also
admitted that DR.. Gerrlsh gave him prescription
for some form OF medicine 70 take, which he only
took short time because ii was too expensive.
The plaintiff claims that he followed the doc
tors directions throughout; that he did not at.
tempt TO use the limb in the least until directed TO
DR.. James NJ. Buzzel was the only expert
called by the plaintiff. He claimed that the pas-
suitable one. that the double Inclined
plane extension splnt should have
been used; that in his opinion this shortening oc-
CURED because there was no extension and coun-
ter extension used. He had never heard of
plaster Of paris splint entirely surroundingthe limb
toned by some authorities, he did not understand
them 70 be recommended or used by those high
up in the profession. He did not think it would
advised by DR.. Gerrish, chiefly on account Of Lib
Dys run down condition and the danger of blood
poisoning On cross examination the doctor said
he did not know or see how extension could be
produced or maintained by the plaster dressing.
DIR. Gerrish testified in substance that there
junction of the middle and lower third, but that
the other bone the fibuIa was also fractured
after etherizing the patient and
put on splint made by moulding binders board
which remained on about four weeks when union
should have naturally taken place.. 1t was then
found that union had not taken place, although
the parts were in position and had not been out
of place since the reduction of the fractures and
he then nut the MASTER of nariS enIint or
dressing; that there was at that time very little
swelling and all that could be done was to keep
the fragments in position and maintain extension
which this dressing Is well adapted to do and is
used and recommended by the best surgeons,
front and maintained by bandages until January ~
14th when 1t was replaced by another dressing
Of the same kind. No bony union had at that
attempt at union but nothing of a bony nature.
Inc bones were tthen In place. In March the
s same e cond tdS navng substantially continued
to effect cure for him to have an operation per-
formed substantially as testified to by the plain;
the doctor told him he should have
nothing further to do with the case
BOSTON sne HI ra a ,a bones were In
ing and the plaintiff Was moving about by the aid
Of crptches; Or. Gerrish cauaisned him not to
ing yet to support it. The next time he saw fine
plaintiff was 10 July. when he again came to CON
ened condition, and the doctor accused him Of
having been using it. He admitted that he had
used il little, "but not mncho The doctor told
him the only remedy was to submit to the opera
tion he had spoken Of. The defendant claims that
In all his treatment, both in the splints and ban
dages, he used those recommended by the most
eminent surgeons In the profession; that the con
dtlon OF the leg Is due to the physical condition
throw out a bony union, and to the urjustifabie
nse of his leg when he was advised thatsthere was
no such union. '"'
The testimony of DIR. Gerrish is not finished
MI. Meaher had just begun his cross examination
when court adjourned.
J: j. Perry and d. A. Meaher for plaintiff
Charles +. Libby for defendant.