Court Opinion

ID: 9516654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:48:06.684969+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:01.983914
License: Public Domain

White, J.,
dissenting.
We submit that it is the majority that is neither *612clear nor concise, but rather is strained and speculative.
The paragraph the majority holds is not in “ordinary and concise language” is as follows: “Plain-
tiff in 1965 was 41 years old, a resident of Nebraska and submitted to the care of the defendant John L. Dewey for the treatment of an allergy. In 1965, defendant John L. Dewey ordered and administered therapeutic x-ray treatments upon plaintiff for the purpose of alleviating or curing her allergy. The treatment included the injection of x-ray radiation particles into the plaintiff’s chest from the front and rear. Plaintiff underwent three exposures to x-rays a year for the years, 1965, 1966 1967 and 1970. Plaintiff was last seen and examined by defendant on March 2, 1972.” The language is, in fact, ordinary and concise. The defendant was engaged to treat an allergy. To suggest that the last treatment was, in fact, for another purpose is not supportable from any reasonable construction of the paragraph.
Shanahan, J., joins in this dissent.