Court Opinion

ID: 9564379
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 18:59:21.532521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:22.819071
License: Public Domain

MR. JUSTICE CASTLES:
I dissent.-
Though I feel that the majority opinion has correctly stated the law, I do not' feel that the law and facts have been properly related and I therefore feel tliat the result reached is incorrect.
*128The plaintiff’s medical expert, Dr. Harper, made it clear that (1) a 50 percent alcohol-ether solution was. a medically accepted mixture for irrigating a “T” tube.at the tipie in the plaintiff’s locality; (2) that to irrigate the liver .(as distinguished from the “T” tube) with such a solution or any other solution was not a medically acceptable practice; and (3) that in his opinion the plaintiff’s liver, was not and could not have leen irrigated.
By cross-examination of his own witness, Dr. Harper, in regard to hypothetical questions unsupported by the evidence, plaintiff’s counel insisted on securing answers relative to the possibility and impropriety of irrigating the liver. This he did in spite of repeated protests from his witness that the liver of Mr. Thomas was not irrigated; and that it was impossible in the opinion of the witness, for the liver itself to be irrigated.
Dr. Harper admitted that if the sphincter muscle were to remain closed tightly enough no fluid could pass into the bowel. He also said, however: “Eventually this sphincter will release and the solution will go down.” A proper answer to this question required certain facts as to pressure, amount of solution, duration, and the syringe used, none of which facts were established in this case by any evidence, substantial or otherwise.
The only evidence contrary to the doctor’s opinion was that elicited on examination of the plaintiff’s daughter. Testifying with regard to a conversation held between herself and Dr. Merriam concerning her father’s condition after the irrigation she said, “I asked him one day why my dad was having all this pain after the irrigation and before he was all right, and he said he irrigated the liver through the ‘T’ tube with pressure and that is what caused the pain and irritation but in a few days he would be all right.”
It is significant that this conversation took place four years prior to the trial and that the witness is an interested lay person. In addition, the anatomical knowledge needed to speak intelligently on the matters involved here is more than ordi*129narily complicated. At the trial, the distinctions between the gall bladder, liver, ducts, sphincter, etc., were presented in detail through the use of complex medical charts.
The standard of care of a doctor and whether he exercises such care can only be established by testimony of experts in the field unless his negligence can be demonstrated by facts which can be evaluated by resort to the common knowledge possessed by a layman. Schumacher v. Murray Hospital, 58 Mont. 447, 193 Pac. 397; Loudon v. Scott, 58 Mont. 645, 653, 194 Pac. 488, 12 A.L.R. 1487. The same rule is set forth clearly in Ayers v. Parry, 3 Cir., 1951, 192 F. (2d) 181, 184, 185, where it is stated that:
“Occasionally expert testimony is not required where an injury results to a part of the anatomy not .being treated or operated upon and is of such character as to warrant the inference of want of care from the testimony of laymen or in the light of the knowledge and experience of the jurors themselves. This situation arises when an ulterior act or omission occurs, the explanation of which does not require scientific opinion. [Citing authorities.] But where, as here, an injury to healthy tissue within the region of treatment constitutes an occurrence beyond the realm of the knowledge and experience of laymen, the issue of negligence with respect to that injury must be determined by expert testimony.”
Applied to the facts of the case at hand, I believe the rules stated in the Schumacher, Loudon, and Ayers cases, supra, require that the plaintiff’s complaint be supported by expert testimony, not just that of a lay witness. This support was totally lacking, in fact, the plaintiff’s medical witness gave it as his opinion that the plaintiff’s liver was not and could not have been irrigated as asserted by the lay witness.
With the facts of the case in such a state, I fail to see how the district judge could do anything but grant a nonsuit.