Court Opinion

ID: 9588952
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 23:39:55.28205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:00.737342
License: Public Domain

Evans, Judge,
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
The City of Columbus operates a Medical Center. Mrs. Thelma Washington caused her two-year-old son to be entered in the Emergency Clinic of Columbus Medical Center on January 31, 1971. Four different physicians of Columbus examined, treated, or took various actions respecting the child, and the child departed this life.
Mrs. Washington filed suit for malpractice against the City of Columbus and four physicians in Muscogee Superior Court in that they treated and/or failed to properly treat her child and thereby caused his death. After a very lengthy hearing before the trial judge and a jury in Muscogee Superior Court, consuming nine days, the trial judge directed a verdict in favor of the local physicians and the City of Columbus.
Plaintiff filed a motion for new trial, and the trial *694judge overruled same. Plaintiff appeals to this court.
The majority opinion affirms the trial court completely except that it says a new trial should be granted only as to Dr. Sam Miller. It is here noted that if the child was alive at the time Dr. Miller performed certain unusual medical experiments on the child’s body, this could have caused the death of the child as shown by other expert witnesses. If the child was already dead, then, of course, Dr. Miller caused the "mutilation of the body.” I agree to this part of the majority opinion, but I do not agree with the majority in holding the trial judge properly directed a verdict in favor of the other doctors and the hospital. Dr. Miller was merely an intern and was under the control of his superiors and his employer at all times.
I respectfully dissent, and contend the trial court erred in failing to grant new trials against each and all of the defendants; and erred in directing verdicts in favor of the five defendants.
Let it be emphasized that this was a case where verdicts were directed after nine days trial, the trial judge thus refusing to allow the twelve jurors of Muscogee County to pass upon the facts alleged against the five Muscogee County defendants.
It is important to remember that we are not here concerned with evidence offered by the defendants, which favored their side of the case; nor are we concerned with the preponderance of the evidence. (However, we do not concede there was a preponderance of evidence in behalf of defendants.) The sole question is: "Was there any evidence, all of which must be construed most favorably towards the plaintiff, which made a factual issue to be passed upon by the jurors? The trial judge had no right whatever to weigh the evidence, nor to decide any issue of fact. Before he could legally direct a verdict for defendants, he must find from the evidence that there was no evidence of any kind supporting plaintiffs position.” See Montgomery v. Pacific &c. Co., 131 Ga. App. 712, 714 (206 SE2d 631); Johnson v. Mann, 132 Ga. App. 169 (207 SE2d 663); Lathan v. Murrah, Inc., 121 Ga. App. 554 (174 SE2d 269); McNabb v. Hardeman, 77 Ga. App. 451 (49 SE2d 194).
The gross negligence (malpractice) on the part of the *695doctors in this case can be illustrated in a few sentences. When the child arrived at the hospital there was nothing unusual about the appearance of the abdomen; no swelling, no indication that the abdomen was filled with blood. (T. 89) After the child had been in the hospital for approximately 45 minutes those in authority diagnosed that there was no life in the body and the admission records were changed to show DO A (dead on arrival)! (T. 43-51, 101, 103, 177, 179, 183-185) The baby was sent to the morgue and left there all night, and the next morning its little abdomen was filled with blood. (See T. 309 to 575) It was proven by experts that the abdomen could not have filled with blood except because of the beating of the heart. (T. 329, 330, 331, 332) So the little child was left alone all night in the morgue —ALIVE! (T. 332, 378) — without one iota of attention or aid being administered to sustain life; and as a result, life finally — on the next day — left the little body. (T. 378) Could there be anything more grossly negligent and more indicative of a high degree of malpractice?
A dead child’s heart does not beat, and without a heartbeat the child’s belly would not have been swollen the next day. At page 332 of the transcript Dr. Shuffstall testified as follows: "Q. Doctor Shuffstall, do you have an opinion as to whether or not the child was alive at the time this quantity of blood, both free blood and blood that was infused into the tissue, was put into the abdominal cavity? A. Are you asking me if I have an opinion? Q. Do you have an opinion? A. Yes, I do. Q. What is that opinion? A. My opinion is that the child was alive.”
As previously stated, by no means do I admit that the weight of evidence was with the defendant. When it was proven that they admitted the child to the hospital as a live human being, and then did nothing for him — decided he was dead — when there is ample evidence to show that the child was alive when admitted to the hospital — and then had the records of the hospital changed to read "Dead on Arrival,” the case becomes quite suspicious and must be considered with the utmost gravity and alertness.
It is impossible to read the record and transcript without becoming thoroughly convinced that there was abundant evidence favoring plaintiffs position and *696making issues of fact which should have been determined solely by the jury — not by directed verdicts by the judge. There was ample evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the defendants, each and all, were guilty of malpractice and should have been held responsible and liable.
We shall cite from specific places in the transcript, but first let one of the major issues be set forth. The little child was brought into the hospital (T. 38), and after awhile the physicians considered the child as if dead (T. 40). They did not come to this conclusion immediately, and one of the most damning factors in the case against defendants is that the hospital records were changed after the child had been admitted — someone under those in authority went back and changed the record to show the child was dead on arrival! (T. 50, 101, 103, 177, 179, 183-185). This comes as near to an admission of guilt as can be imagined against the defendants — to "change the records” after admission of the child as a live and viable human being!
Each and every defendant must accept his full share of responsibility for this shameful act under the evidence and the pleadings, because they were alleged to be "conspirators.” Plaintiffs complaint charged that the child’s death was "caused by acts of negligence of each of the defendants acting jointly and separately” (R. 4 — Count 1 — Paragraph 4); and again it was charged that defendants’ "acts of negligence [were committed] while acting jointly and separately.” (R. 41, Plaintiffs second amendment to complaint; Par. 4). It was specifically charged that after the child’s admission the medical records were altered (R. 7, Count 3, Par. 15).
The language used in the complaint is sufficient to charge conspiracy; it is not necessary that the word "conspiracy” be used. Nobles v. Webb, 197 Ga. 242, 245 (29 SE2d 158); and the conspiracy (as held on the same page) may be shown by circumstantial evidence. In Wall v. Wall, 176 Ga. 757 (168 SE 893) the last sentence in Headnote 4 is: "Proof of the conspiracy renders the act of one in deceiving and defrauding the injured party the act of all.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The complaint alleges that the wrongful acts of *697defendants were "jointly” committed, and this is sufficient as to conspiracy. Black’s Law Dictionary defines "jointly” as "acting together or in concert or cooperation.” Webster’s International Dictionary defines "concerted” as "mutually contrived or planned.”
And, of course, under the New Civil Practice Act, pleadings are to be given that construction most favorable to the pleader. Hunter v. A-1 Bonding Service, Inc., 118 Ga. App. 498 (164 SE2d 246); Harper v. DeFreitas, 117 Ga. App. 236 (160 SE2d 260). In Girtman v. Girtman, 191 Ga. 173, 180 (11 SE2d 782), it is held that "there is no magic in mere nomenclature, even in describing a pleading.” As to the proof of conspiracy by circumstantial evidence, no actual agreement need be shown. (See Walden v. State, 121 Ga. App. 142, 143 (1) (173 SE2d 110)).
In the second amendment to complaint, Count 3, Par. 18 (R. 52) plaintiff charges that the hospital records were altered in order to conceal the true facts.
Dr. Edward Prieto was a full-time physician employed by the Columbus Medical Center. The theory of liability against him was the same as that against Dr. Lowe in that Dr. Prieto failed to give any sort of training, instruction, or supervision to any of the interns prior to this occurrence. Additionally, Dr. Prieto was the senior physician actually present at the time of the emergency treatment of this child and failed to properly supervise the efforts and failed to detect life in the patient.
The Columbus Medical Center was the other defendant. This defendant was charged not only with negligence as a result of the acts of negligence of its (admitted) agents and employees, but was also charged with maintaining a nuisance in failing to properly train, supervise and instruct interns working in the emergency room.
Plaintiff also appeals because a part of her complaint was struck and plaintiff was thus prevented from introducing any evidence in support of such stricken contentions. They are paragraphs 14, 15, 16, and 17 of Count 2 of the amended complaint (R. 51, 52); and allege that Doctors Miller and Crosby were merely interns at the time of their activities in this case, and were not entitled nor allowed to practice medicine except under the direct *698supervision of a licensed physician.
The evidence was that the Columbus Medical Center was known as a teaching hospital where young medical school graduates were induced to spend their internship in order to get advanced training. These interns (who are not licensed physicians, but are allowed to practice only under direct supervision) were never given any course of training at all in emergency room procedures except for practical experience. Other departments of the hospital had actual formal training programs, but the emergency room department had none (T. 635-645).
One theory of liability against Drs. Lowe and Prieto and the Columbus Medical Center is that a dangerous situation existed and was allowed to exist (which amounted to a nuisance) in that untrained and inexperienced interns were given full authority to practice medicine without the proper training, instruction and supervision.
It is undisputed that the defendant, Sam Miller (the intern who actually punctured the abdomen of the child out of mere curiosity), and John Crosby (the intern who ordered the CRE procedure without even examining the child), had no training or supervisional instruction in the emergency room.
These two interns (as well as all of the other interns at the hospital) could not be licensed to practice medicine until they had completed their one-year internship (Code Ann. § 84-907).
Nothing could be more grossly negligent than to allow interns to practice medicine when the evidence shows absolutely no training, instruction or supervision of these interns and their activities. Sam Miller did not even have a license in January of 1971 and did not make application for any kind of license until July 1971. (Plaintiffs Ex. 20, T. 929)
This evidence was not offered merely to show that Sam Miller was negligent because he was not licensed. It was offered to also show the standard and duty the law imposes on hospitals and hospital physicians who have interns working for them.
I concur in the majority opinion in holding that the court erred in directing a verdict in favor of Dr. Sam *699Miller, the intern, inasmuch as it appears from the evidence that he directly or indirectly caused the death of the child; or, if the child at that time was already dead, mutilated its body.
But I dissent from all of the rest of the majority opinion in toto; and assert that the trial court erred in directing a verdict in favor of the five defendants; and that the trial court also erred in ordering certain portions of plaintiffs complaint expunged, and in refusing to allow plaintiff to introduce evidence supporting the contentions thus expunged from plaintiffs complaint.
A new trial should be granted against each of the five defendants, and a jury should decide the question of whether or not defendants committed malpractice and are liable to plaintiff for damages.