Court Opinion

ID: 9654648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:46:11.016404+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:12.223020
License: Public Domain

ASHWORTH, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent to that portion of the majority opinion which holds there is no fact question as to whether Dr. Petta’s negligent use of an instrumentality caused appellant’s injury.
While the “captain of the ship” doctrine has been abolished, medical doctors still remain liable for their own acts of negligence within the confines of the Medical Liability Act. Under the unusual circumstances of this case, the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies.
The patient has placed herself under the complete control of the doctor. She sustains a broken toe while undergoing a hemorrhoidectomy, an injury completely unrelated to the treatment authorized. In these circumstances, such an injury would not be sustained in the absence of negligence. The patient has no personal knowledge of what occurred while she was unconscious. In this instance the doctor’s statement of no negligence on his part presents a fact question to be resolved by the fact finder; his credibility is a fact issue.
*241Appellant’s fourth, fifth, and sixth points of error should be sustained.
Joined by BURDOCK and HOPKINS, JJ.