Court Opinion

ID: 9722312
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 09:24:53.817804+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:33.874232
License: Public Domain

YETKA, Justice
(concurring specially).
I concur in the decision only because I believe plaintiffs’ counsel failed to prove a causal connection between the injury to the little boy and the alleged negligence of the doctor. I believe, however, that there is evidence of negligence based on the testimony of Dr. Glass alone. Considering the number of spinal punctures that Robert was given over the brief period of time, Dr. Glass indicated he would have expected the injury that ultimately resulted. Many of the attempts at treatment were unsuccessful. It is true, as Dr. Glass testified, that once meningitis is suspected, a spinal puncture is necessary to tap spinal fluid for verification. It is noteworthy, however, that meningitis was not found; therefore, there was strong evidence that the repeated initial and unsuccessful spinal taps caused a condition which resembled meningitis. If plaintiffs had expanded on this theory, they might have had sufficient evidence to create a fact question for the jury. The plaintiffs’ case was based upon finding negligence in connection with the final spinal taps used in the attempt to diagnose meningitis. They failed because their own ex*10pert testified that those taps would have been necessary in that situation.
OTIS and KELLEY, JJ., took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.