Court Opinion

ID: 9773401
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 17:44:44.298053+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:31:53.344031
License: Public Domain

DUNN, Justice,
dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The summary judgment evidence did establish uncontroverted proof of an applicable standard of care in diagnosing appellant’s infectious condition, and also established that the appellee did not violate this standard of care.
Uncontroverted deposition testimony of Dr. Naficy established that there were two methods recognized as good medical practice in the control of infection. One accepted method is to use prophylactic antibiotics immediately, and the other method is to wait before using antibiotics until “the first sign of infection.” Dr. Maldonado agreed in his deposition testimony that the first sign of infection is the appearance of cellu-titis in the area and this indicates also where the infection is coming from. This testimony was uncontroverted.
Dr. Naficy, in discussing his treatment of the wound, testified by way of deposition that... “I went there everyday, washed it, cleaned it and so forth....” and “when I first saw that there was the appearance of swelling and some redness in the incision line, or suture line, of operation, then I started him on antibiotics.”
There is no evidence in the record controverting the above.
In my opinion, the summary judgment testimony established as a matter of law that the appellee was not negligent in his diagnosis of appellant’s infectious condition.
Further, a careful examination of the summary judgment proof supports the court’s ruling on all other points of error urged by the appellant.
I would affirm the judgment of the trial court.