Court Opinion

ID: 9788222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:32:48.386816+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:37:06.154340
License: Public Domain

Steuer, J. (dissenting).
This is an action for wrongful death due to malpractice. The deceased, a woman 55 years of age, was admitted to defendant hospital on August 19, 1965, as a private patient of defendants Drs. Kirschenbaum and Adelman. She had just experienced a hemorrhage due to a cerebral aneurysm of congenital origin. She suffered two hemorrhages while in the hospital and died on August 26, 1965. Plaintiff asserted several specifications of malpractice, some of which were pleaded and some not. The court resolved these claims into five questions which were submitted to the jury. The jury found only that there was malpractice in regard to specification number 2 — “ Failure to give Nauturetin on Aug. 23, 24, 25 and 26.”
In order to understand this finding a more detailed statement of the facts as developed on the trial is needed. An aneurysm is a weakened condition of the wall of a blood vessel. As a result blood may seep or hemorrhage from the vessel into various body *181cavities. This had happened to the deceased prior to her admission to the hospital. Successive accidents of this sort are invariably fatal. The condition can be treated surgically. It was plaintiff’s initial and primary claim that the failure to operate soon after the deceased’s admission to the hospital was malpractice, and this contention was supported by plaintiff’s expert. The contention was countered by defendants ’ claim that the deceased was not operable at that time and the sole hope of recovery was stabilization of her blood pressure at a sufficiently low level for the operative procedure to have a favorable prognosis. Without commenting on the validity of the respective medical contentions, the jury did not find that the decision not to operate deviated from accepted medical practice. In order to reduce the deceased’s blood pressure and bring it under control the administration of Naturetin was prescribed. For some reason not specifically explained, no Naturetin was given the deceased after August 22, and it was this failure that was found to constitute malpractice.
The difficulty with the finding was that the failure did not cause her death. On August 22 the deceased suffered a second hemorrhage. According to Dr. Lieberman, plaintiff’s most prestigious expert, her condition was then terminal and could not be reversed. It is true that other doctors testified that there was a possibility of the deceased being saved thereafter, but their opinions lacked any substantial support. Furthermore, the administration of Naturetin advocated after August 22 was not the dosage previously administered but a massive injection designed to have a radical effect. This procedure, shown to have dangerous side effects, was one of thosé embraced in the fifth specification put to the jury—‘ ‘ Events during 12 hours before patient’s death ’ ’ — and rejected by them. It would therefore appear that while the failure to administer Nautretin after August 22 might indicate an attitude, it was not shown to have been the producing cause of the demise.
Additionally, I fail to find any justification whatever for an award for conscious pain and suffering after August 22. There is no proof or reason to believe that this unfortunate woman was capable of experiencing pain at that time.
For these reasons I would reverse and dismiss the complaint.
McGivern, P. J., Markewich, Capozzoli and Macken, JJ., concur in Per Curiam opinion; Stetjeb, J., dissents in an opinion.
Judgment, Supreme Court, New York County, entered on October 17, 1973, affirmed. Respondent shall recover of appellants $60 costs and disbursements of this appeal.