Case Name: WROBEL v. COTMAN
Court: Michigan Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1964-03-05
Citations: 372 Mich. 383
Docket Number: Calendar No. 13, Docket No. 50,158
Parties: WROBEL v. COTMAN.
Judges: Kavanagh, C. J., and Dethmers, Kelly, Black, Souris, and O’Hara, JJ., concurred.
Reporter: Michigan Reports
Volume: 372
Pages: 383–386

Head Matter:
WROBEL v. COTMAN.
;i. Physicians and Surgeons — Dentists—Malpractice—Extraction — Evidence—X bays.
Plaintiff patient failed to make out a eause of action for malpractice by defendant dentist in extracting some of her teeth, ■where there was a failure of proof of negligence in ways alleged in that it was not shown that the standard of practice in the community required X rays prior to any extraction, that there was infection in the mouth, either prior to or subsequent to extraction, or that instruments used were dirty or otherwise unsanitary.
•2. Same — Dentists—Textbook as Evidence — Saving Question for Review.
Contents of standard textbook in dental colleges tending to show desirability of X rays prior to extraction was not properly before Supreme Court, where neither the full text nor any part thereof had been offered at trial of malpractice action against dentists.
3. Same — Standard of Professional Care — Extraction of Teeth— X rays — Evidence.
Whether or not X rays are required prior to extraction of teeth is a matter of professional practice which must be proved by medical, not lay, testimony.
References for Points in Headnotes
41 Am Jur, Physicians and Surgeons §§ 78 et seq., 88, 89, 128. Proximate cause in malpractice cases. IS ALB2d 1Í.
20 Am Jur, Evidence §§ 966-968.
41 Am Jur, Physicians and Surgeons §§ 88, 89, 128.
Appeal from Wayne; Fitzgerald (Neal), J.
Submitted October 9, 1963.
(Calendar No. 13, Docket No. 50,158.)
Decided March 5, 1964.
Case by Annabelle Wrobel against Lawrence Cot-man and Paul S. Crane for malpractice in the extraction of teeth. Directed verdict and judgment for defendants. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Louis Andrzejewski (Kenneth Afton, of counsel),, for plaintiff.
Humphreys Sprmgstun, for defendants.

Opinion:
Smith, J.
Plaintiff commenced this action for damages alleging malpractice by defendant dentists. Upon motion by defendants at the close of plaintiff's proofs, the trial court directed a verdict of no-cause-of action in favor of defendants. From such verdict and denial of motion for new trial, plaintiff appeals.
Plaintiff, suffering from gum and tooth irritation, went to the office of Dr. Cotman who removed a third molar in the upper jaw. After continuous post-extraction pain, plaintiff returned to Dr. Cotman who examined further and applied to the tooth socket a dental preparation known as "Wonder-Pak." Several days later, plaintiff returned complaining-of continued pain. This time, she saw Dr. Crane who maintains offices adjoining Dr. Cotman. X rays were then taken; after consultation between the 2 dentists, they decided that a molar in the lower jaw should also be removed. Dr. Cotman performed the second extraction also. A few days later, plaintiff visited, a hospital, then later an oral surgeon, and after that another hospital. Eventually, corrective surgery was performed by others at the Henry Ford Hospital in Detroit.
The amended declaration alleged Dr. Cotman was-negligent in 3 ways: (a) by failing to X-ray prior to extraction; (b) by failing "to clear the infection"' prior to extraction; and (c) by using "dirty instruments" in the extraction.
At trial,..there was a near total failure of proof. Not one treating physician or dentist was produced as a witness. Although plaintiff testified that no X rays were taken before the first extraction, there was no competent evidence to show that the standard of practice in the community required X rays, prior to extraction. There were no proofs of infection in the mouth, either prior or subsequent to extraction. There were no proofs that instruments, used in the extraction were "dirty" or otherwise unsanitary. •
Requirements of proof in such cases wfebe'restated recently in the ease of Skeffington v. Bradley, 366 Mich 552, 554:
"The assembled and settled rules written most recently in Lince v. Monson, 363 Mich 135, require affirmance of these judgments for the defendant medical doctor. Plaintiffs' allegation of malpractice is not supported by medical testimony showing or tending to show that what the defendant did or omitted doing was contrary to customary practice by reputable members of the medical profession practicing under similar conditions. Neither do their presented cases admit consideration of exceptions characterized generally by professional conduct 'so gross as to be within the comprehension of' laymen' (see annotation 141 ALR 5, 12 and treatment of such exceptions in Lince, pp 141, 142)."
It may be accepted as proved that no X rays were taken prior to the first extraction. As tending to show that X rays are desirable prior to extraction, plaintiff cites on appeal at length from "Dr. Mead's. Oral Surgery," apparently a standard textbook in dental colleges. Neither the full text nor any portion thereof was offered at trial and, therefore, this material is not properly before us. We hold that whether or not X rays are required prior to extraction is a matter of professional practice which must be proved by medical testimony. There was no such proof.
There being no competent evidence to support plaintiff's allegations of negligence, the trial court properly directed a verdict of no cause.
Affirmed. Costs to appellees.
Kavanagh, C. J., and Dethmers, Kelly, Black, Souris, and O'Hara, JJ., concurred.
Adams, J., took no part in the decision of this case.