Court Opinion

ID: 9549731
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:24:14.325424+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:20:51.644311
License: Public Domain

Price, J.,
dissenting: Here the physician is alleged to have told the patient—
“that while the operations might not have any beneficial effect the plaintiff’s hearing would not be worsened as a result of the operations.”
It then is alleged that as a direct result of the operations the patient’s hearing was worsened.
In my opinion — looking through form to substance — such allegations amount to nothing more than that the physician either did not know what he was talking about or else was guilty of giving bad medical advice — when he made such statement — and therefore was guilty of negligence amounting to malpractice. Despite the allegations as to “agreements, promises and warranties,” it seems to me — looking at this matter from a practical and realistic standpoint —that the real contention in this case is that the patient was the victim of “bad medical advice” — thus rendering the physician guilty of malpractice — in which event the two-year statute of limitations would apply.
I therefore believe the demurrer to the amended petition should have been sustained.
Parker, C. J., joins in the foregoing dissent.