Golden Valley chronicle. (Beach, Billings County, N.D.) 1905-1916, 1913-01-10
$4,000 Verdict
Against Doctor

Bel6eld Physician Loses Mslprac-
tice Case in District Court at
Dickinson-Case to BE Ap-
pealed.
Considerably more than usual
interest centered in district court
this week when the case of Albert
Donker VS.. r. Colwill was in
progress. This was a civil action
to recover $4,000 damage from
DR.. Colwill, of Bel6eld, for al
legged malpractice.
May 18th, 1911, Donker. a
young Hollander, who had been
for a time with the Holland--Da-
kota Landbouw Co. at Bel6eld as
foreman, but at the time of the
accident employed on a ranch,
had his leg broken below the
knee by a wagon being tipped
over upon it by frightened team.
Dr.. Colwill reduced the fracture.
Three months passed and the
bone did not knit and the patient
complained that the bones were
loose and grating and that the
pain was intense. August 18th.
1917. according to DR.. Colwill's
memorandum. he performed an
operation, opening the leg and
laying bare the fracture. The
bones had not united. At that
time he put in a silver wire splint
and rebandaged the limb: The
leg still remained useless. About
the first of October, 1911. Mr.:
-Donker came to Dickinson and
entered the Stein hospital. where
Drs. Davis and Bowen operated
upon the injured member. Ac-
,cording to their testimony they
found the main bones still sepa-
rate, a small detached dead piece
of bone. pus present and an IN
fected condition of the tissues:
The fracture was again reduced
and treated and in February
Mr.. Donker found himself able to
use his limb. although somewhat
=, crippled.
The suit for damages was
brought by Mr.. Donker upon the
plea that incompetency and gross
negligence on the part of DR.. Col.
will cause him several months OF
illness beyond the time usually re-
quired for the healing of a broken
bone, great expense. loss of wages
and permanent disability.
The prosecution claimed the
limb was not properly bandaged
at first; that it was out of line and
was known to be; that it was not
watched carefully; that no splin-
ter on the front side of the bone
treated grew onto the bone as
claimed; that the dead piece from
the back of the broken bone was
not removed in the August opera
ton, and that infection resulted ;
that the plaintiff had done moth.
ing to retard cure.
The defense introduced evil
dence relative to Dr.. Colwill' 8
professional training and compe-
tency and denied carelessness.
negligence or indifference. The
fracture was difficult one to inn
mobilize. but it was properly ban
~daged. The patient had not
obeyed instructions and had nj
.jured himself by moving when or
.dered to keep quiet. He had
even removed bandages and
splints. His physical condition
was such as to delay the healing
of the break.
Several interesting points OF
law were brought out by the at.
torneys and elucidated by the
court in the charge to the jury.
Competency to practice medi-
cine or surgery does not mean
that one must be specialist but
that he must possess that measure
.:of knowledge. of his profession
:: possessed BY others similarly stu.
.ated and commemorate to the
size and importance of the place
where he j. located. The same
,kno~vIedae and akill dancanI.j :-
'7'St. Pau1 or Chicago would not, BE-
! expected In . village like Bel6eld.
a ph5sieian iiaaay refuse ans
case. but once taking q patient he
10 bound to do HE best whethe,
: paid or not.
No physician guarantees cur.
and he 10 not Liable for errors IL
judgment.
The patient after putting him.
!. self in the care of a physician i.
as much bound to obey orders a.
the physician 10 to exercise skill,
knowledge and care.
So in the Donker-Colwill case
the jury had to decide if DR.: Col.
will was competent; if so. was he
negligent in this case2 Was the
patient so disobedient of order,
as to destroy the effect of the doc.
tors skill and care; if so, the bur.
den of proof then shifting to the
defense.