Court Opinion

ID: 9532458
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:21:33.850274+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:45.951890
License: Public Domain

Robb, J.
(dissenting): The general rule in actions of this type is that strong reliance has to be placed on expert rather than lay testimony. However, laymen can testify regarding those things they actually see, and what they hear the experts say, or conversations had in the presence of experts. (Bernsden v. Johnson, 174 Kan. 230, 236, 237, 255 P. 2d 1033.)
I dissent from the majority opinion of the court as to the ruling on the demurrers because I believe we are bound by the oft-stated rule reiterated in Noel v. Menninger Foundation, 180 Kan. 23, 299 P. 2d 38, which was cited with approval in Koch v. Suttle, 180 Kan. 603, 606, 306 P. 2d 123. In the Noel case we said:
“In testing the sufficiency of the evidence when attacked by demurrer all of the evidence will be considered as true, it will not be weighed as to any contradictory parts or discrepancies therein between direct or cross-examination, or among the witnesses, and every favorable inference which may reasonably be drawn therefrom will be given to such evidence. If there is any evidence which sustains the case, the demurrer will he overruled." (Syl. 1.) (My emphasis.)
For clarity, reference to the evidence of witnesses will be made in sequence as to time instead of in the order in which such evidence appeared in the record.
What does tihe record show? Appellant, whose deceased wife weighed 220 pounds, testified that when he took his wife to the hospital, she noticed a bloody discharge and she was hysterical.
The charts, which were part of the permanent records of the hospital and were identified by its superintendent, were kept by the same nurses who were placed on the stand by appellant and who testified in regard to the entries made thereon. The first nurse called as a witness had signed the charts but had not made all the entries. The charts contained entries stating “Show bloody,” “Small amt. blood-tinged discharge . . . 5:00 p. m. every 2 to 4 minutes,” and “. . . at 6:00 p. m., every one minute hard, duration 50 sec. dark green discharge. . . .” The charts indicated Doctor Graber saw the patient at 10:45 p. m., made a rectal examination and entered on the charts the comment that they, “Must consider *116breech presentation although still seems to be the head.” The charts showed no other visit by the doctor until 2:10 a. m. just prior to the birth. The doctor had caused an entry to be made on the patient’s chart at the time of her admission to the hospital at 5:45 a. m. on February 6, 1954, stating, “Patient not in labor but has passed some show of blood at home and is admitted in anticipation of early labor.”
The charts showed a number of rectal examinations by the nurses with conclusions arrived at by them as to location and placement of the baby’s head. Certain medications were administered to the patient by these same nurses and while the evidence is somewhat contradictory, it was fairly established that some of these medications were to induce labor pains and uterine contractions and after these had started, then another medication was administered by the nurses to slow down labor and reduce pain.
The testimony interspersed with explanations of the charts by the nurses included information not fully reflected in the charts alone to the effect that the patient was left totally to the nurses who made the rectal examinations and made conclusions therefrom, who administered medications, including drugs and narcotics that could be dangerous if given in excess, and then telephoned the doctor to advise him of the progress and to get directions from him. These nurses testified they knew how to make these examinations and how to administer the drugs, but they admitted they were not sure of their findings, deductions, and conclusions; the doctors were the persons qualified to do this. There were no internes or staff physicians at this hospital. X-ray equipment was available in the hospital. The nurses further testified that sterile vaginal examinations were sometimes used in the event a breech birth was expected.
At about 2:10 a. m., in the opinion of the nurses, the buttocks of the baby appeared and the doctor was called. It was a still birth.
We return to appellant’s testimony relating to what he saw and heard in the labor and delivery room. (The record does not show whether more than one room was used.) When the medications were administered, the patient’s water broke, and she told him, in the presence of the nurses, that was as close as she ever came to dying. She told the nurses she was ready to have her baby if they would just let her bear down, but they turned her on her side to stop the pains and told her they would tell her when it was ready to bear down. This was the patient’s fourth child. The same doctor had delivered the three previous children.
*117Appellant further testified that the nurses were in and out but he had been left alone to the extent that he would have to go out in the hall to get a nurse to bring a bedpan. They would not use the bedpan on the delivery table so she used it on the floor. His wife lost so much blood that he became sick and had to leave the room.
In a subsequent conversation the doctor told appellant that his wife was too big a woman to have a little baby; that he possibly could have saved both the mother and baby by a Caesarean operation but doctors look forward and not backward. Three other witnesses heard this statement of the doctor regarding the Caesarean operation. The doctor had relied on the fact that three previous births by this mother had been successful. He had not anticipated any trouble with this one.
Dr. Lorin E. Dickelmann, a pathologist who performed an autopsy on the deceased mother, testified that X-ray was usually done at a previous time to determine the position of the baby but doctors would not necessarily have to resort thereto. He found the uterus was unusual in that it was thick at the top and thin at the bottom. In reply to a question as to whether this could be detected by X-ray, Doctor Dickelmann stated that any gynecologist will try his best to make that diagnosis if he can. The more abnormal the birth, the greater the possibility of tearing something since the getting through would be more difficult. If the condition could be recognized, a doctor would have to examine, to go in and do something about it. He did not recommend a vaginal examination until a doctor was ready to go ahead and deliver. He had noted there were some areas of contusions on the chest of the child.
As stated at the outset, my opinion is that the correct rule to be applied to this testimony, because we have consistently committed ourselves thereto, is the one previously quoted from the Noel case, supra.
' The result is I am convinced that not only is there some evidence but there is much more than necessary to require that both demurrers be overruled. From the record, the hospital through its nurses assumed duties which the nurses were admittedly not qualified to carry out, and the doctor, who had the qualifications to realize and diagnose the condition of his patient, left everything up to the nurses. In this case we are considering the proof *118of the appellant and the demurrers thereto. Appellees’ testimony may present an entirely different picture, but we do not have that picture before us now. In my opinion, both demurrers should have been overruled.
Wertz, J., concurs in the foregoing dissenting opinion.