The Washington times., 1934-06-29

the defendant in the sum OF $1U,-
600. The defendant filed his mo,
ton for a new trial, which, after
careful consideration and a re.
view of the evidence, the court
believes should be sustained.
The declaration, after reciting
that the use plaintiff had de-
veloped pneumonia and pleurisy,
followed by empyema as a result
thereof, charges that:
DE lend liant OctOr, a
licensed practicing physician,
was engaged by said use plain
tiff and undertook to treat
said use plaintiff professional
ly, and the defendant there
upon engaged a surgeon, who,
on December 4, 1928, performed
a certain surgical operation on
said use plaintiff, whereby a
certain opening was made into
said use plaintiffs pleural cav
ity, and a certain rubber tube
or tubing or other matter
placed in the opening of said
pleural cavity for drainage pur-
poses; that after said surgical
operation by said surgeon as
aforesaid, said defendant in
the months of December, 1928:
January, February, March and
April, 1929, undertook to treat
and redress the wound caused
to said use plaintiff as the
result of said surgical opera
ton as. aforesaid, whereupon
1t became and was the duty
of the defendant to exercise
reasonable care, prudence and
skill as the attending phySi-
clan to said use plaintiff in
the treatment and in the rem.
dering of medical attention re-
quired and made necessary by
reason of said operation, and
to remove from said wound,
said rubber tube or tubing or
other material placed in said
opening into the pleural cavity
by the operating surgeon as
aforesaid, so that said opening
and pleuraI cavity would be
free of any foreign substance
or matter"
The negligence of the defend
ant in treating and redressing
the wound is specifically alleged
in the following manner:
"Yet, Notwithstanding his
duty in the premises, defendant
did not exercise reasonable care
and skill in the performance Of
said treatment and redressings,
but negligently and carelessly
failed and neglected to remove
from said opening into said
pleural cavity said rubber tube
or tubing or other material, but
did negligently and careIessly
permit a piece, or several pieces,
of said tubing, or other mate
rial, to remain and become lost
in said wound, as a result where
of said use plaintiff did fail to
improve after said operation.
but continued to remain ill and
to suffer, and it became neces-
sary, to.wit, in July, 1929, for
said use plaintiff to submit to
and undergo another operation
at which time a piece of said
tubing or other material was
removed from said wound; that
after said operation in July,
1929, said use plaintiff failed to
improve and continued to re.
main i'll and to suffer, where.
upon, to wit, in October, 1881,
it became necessary for said
use plaintiff to submit to a
third operation at which time
two pieces Of said tubing or
other material were removed
from said wound, both of said
subsequent operations being oc-
casioned by the fact that said
defendant had negligentIy and
carelesSly failed and neglected
to remove all of said tubing, or
other material, from said use
plaintiffs wound at the time he
undertook to treat and redress
use plaintiffs said wound after
said operation on December A,
1925"