Case Name: J. SEMPLE, Appellant, v. G. ROY RINGO, Respondent
Court: North Dakota Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: North Dakota
Decision Date: 1919-05-05
Citations: 42 N.D. 613
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. SEMPLE, Appellant, v. G. ROY RINGO, Respondent.
Judges: Bronson and G'race, JJ., concur in result.
Reporter: North Dakota Reports
Volume: 42
Pages: 613–617

Head Matter:
J. SEMPLE, Appellant, v. G. ROY RINGO, Respondent.
(172 N. W. 817.)
Physicians and surgeons — administering anesthetics — payment for' same.
In surgery the proper administration of an anesthetic is an essential part of the operation, for which a surgeon is commonly paid a good round fee, which includes the minor fee of an assistant. When he employs an assistant, the presumption is that he agrees to pay him, unless the contrary appears from express words or conditions.
Opinion filed May 5, 1919.
Appeal from the County Court of Ward County, Honorable William Murray, Judge.
Reversed and new trial ordered.
A. M. Thompson (Greene & Stenersen, of counsel), for appellant.
Defendant admits that some time before the trial he received from plaintiff a statement of the account sued on in this case, and also received a letter from plaintiff’s attorney concerning it. It nowhere appears that he ever made any objection to the charges or disclaimed liability for any part of it. We submit that, under the law, this constituted an account stated between the parties, and that defendant is estopped to deny liability.
Palda & Aalcer, for respondent.
When a surgeon calls another into consultation, or for assistance in the treatment of any surgical ease, the physician called in consulta tion or assistance is simply called by the attending doctor on behalf of the patient himself, and, under the law, the patient at all times, under these circumstances, is held responsible for all fees of the attending or consulting surgeon, and cannot look to the party calling him for his fees. 30 Cyc. p. 1597, and note; Guerard v. Jenkins, 1 Strobh. (S. 0.) 171.

Opinion:
Robinson, J.
This is an appeal from a judgment on a directed verdict for defendant. The parties are distinguished physicians and surgeons at Minot. The complaint avers that on several occasions in 1915 and 1916, at the special request of the defendant, plaintiff administered anesthetics to patients of defendant on whom he performed surgical' operations; that his services were reasonably worth $25, which defendant promised to pay. It is admitted that at the request of the defendant the plaintiff performed such services and that the same was reasonably worth $25. The defense is that in requesting the service defendant acted merely as the agent of his patients and did not assume any personal obligation, and that in such cases it is customary for a doctor to administer anesthetics and to look for his pay to the patients, and not to the doctor calling him.
In this case the defendant keeps a hospital at Minot and does quite an extensive operating business. On the several occasions, without disclosing the names of his patients or anything concerning them, he requested and accepted the services of the plaintiff in what are known as minor and major surgical operations. In such a case the principal surgeon commonly gets a good liberal fee for doing everything necessary for a successful operation. In modern surgery the proper administration of an anesthetic is a very essential part of the operation. It may also be necessary to obtain from a druggist antiseptic gauze or cotton, and other small things. All such services and necessaries are properly chargeable to the surgeon when he orders them without giving the name of his patient as the person to whom the charge should be made.
In this case it appears that at the request of defendant the plaintiff went and administered anesthetics, not knowing anything of the patients, not even their names; and not looking to them for payment. It also appears from abundant evidence that the custom is for a surgeon to pay the small fee of an assistant physician whom he requests to ad minister an anesthetic. Clearly both the presumption of law and the weight of the testimony are in favor of the plaintiff. The case should have been submitted to the jury. Judgment reversed and a new trial ordered.
Reversed.
Bronson and G'race, JJ., concur in result.