River Falls journal. [volume] (River Falls, Pierce County, Wis.) 1872-2019, 1914-04-16
POPULAR TALKS ON LAW
Continued from First Page

iuries that may occur.
One who claims TO be specialist
is expected to possess special skill
within his field and if he fails to ex-
ercise special skill in the treatment
of patient he is responsible to the
patient for resulting injury. As a
general practitioner is supposed to
be possessed of ordinary skill and
required to exercise the usual care
he is liable to his patients in dam
ages in court of law if injuries
occur to the patient because of his
failure so to do.
In the first place a physician may
arbitrarily refuse to take any case.
He is under no legal obligation to
serve any person if he does not SO
desire. He cannot be legally COM
PEELED to accept a case with or with
out pay. But if he does accept a
case he is responsible to the patient
for his acts whether he is acting for
pay or gratuitously.
Given a proper opportunity for a
complete examin alton and diagnosis
the physician, once he accepts the
case, is bound to use usual skill
and care in the diagnosis. Follow
ing the diagnosis the physician is
expected to follow the method Of
treatment usual in his profession.
If he does that with usual skill and
care he has fulfilled his duties, is
not responsible to the patient for
results, nor liable for want of sue
cess. The law seems to expect the
physician to follow the usual cours e
of treatment and to deviate there
from at his own risk.
In many cases the courts hold
physicians to a rather strict account
ing for their acts. Something of
the attitude of the courts may be
determined from a recent case in
which a woman sued surgeon for
negligence in performing an opera
ton While performing the opera
ito the surgeon used and inserted
in the opening in the patient large
gauze sponge, which he failed to
remove after completing the opera
ton, although it was IA inches
square. Plaintiff charged that the
surgeon continued to treat her for
six months thereafter, during which
time he permitted the sponge to re
main imbedded in her, and that by
reason thereof she suffered intense
pain, was severely injured internal
", and was compelled to suffer a
second operation at the hands OF
another surgeon for the purpose of
relieving her condition, which opera
ton resulted in finding and remov
ing the sponge. The surgeon un
dertook to excuse himself because,
in the performance of the operation,
it was necessary in careful and
skilled surgery to secure the assist
ance of certain nurses, internes,
and associate surgeons in and about
the hospital, and that included
among them was one Miss Kelly,
the head nurse, to whom he intrust-
ed the duty of counting the SpOnges
before putting them in the body
and upon removing them from the
body, and that he relied upon the
accuracy of her count, and that IT
there was any error in her count he
was not responsible. The trial re-
suited in a verdict for $4,000, and
the surgeon appealed. The Supreme
Court of Ohio held that defendant
was responsible for the proper re-
moval of the sponge.
A physician who treats a patient
is entitled to compensation, unless
there was distinct understanding
that he was to per form the services
free of charge. If a distinct amount
of compensation was agreed upon,
that is the amount to be paid. More
frequently no rate of payment is set
in advance, in which case the physi-
clan is entitled to a reasonable sum
in payment for his services.
Just what is a reasonable sum is
sometimes difficult to determine, II
the patient refuses to accept the
doctors own estimate of the worth
of his services, and forces the doc
tor to sue him for the amount, it be-
comes the duty of the jury to deter
rY1irn hof SC Ia To