Skip to content Skip to sidebar Skip to footer

(Download) "Louella Thomas and Billie Thomas V." by Court of Appeals of Michigan # eBook PDF Kindle ePub Free

Louella Thomas and Billie Thomas V.

๐Ÿ“˜ Read Now     ๐Ÿ“ฅ Download


eBook details

  • Title: Louella Thomas and Billie Thomas V.
  • Author : Court of Appeals of Michigan
  • Release Date : January 21, 1986
  • Genre: Law,Books,Professional & Technical,
  • Pages : * pages
  • Size : 62 KB

Description

This is a medical malpractice action. On February 26, 1979, defendants Dr. E. S. Woodworth and Dr. R. V. Stuber performed a tubal ligation on plaintiff Louella Thomas. Although the procedure was performed at defendant McPherson Community Health Center (health center or center), it is undisputed that defendant physicians are not agents of the center. Two weeks after the tubal ligation was performed, a perforation of Mrs. Thomas' small bowel was discovered, causing extensive peritonitis and necessitating the removal of approximately twelve inches of the bowel. A second surgery was required several days later to drain the infected pelvic area. On March 20, 1980, plaintiffs filed suit against the defendant physicians, Byron Road Medical Group, and McPherson Community Health Center. Jury trial commenced on April 24, 1984. At the close of plaintiffs' proofs, the trial court granted a directed verdict in favor of the health center. A judgment in favor of the remaining defendants was entered pursuant to a jury verdict of no cause of action. The trial court subsequently denied plaintiffs' motion for a new trial. Plaintiffs now appeal as of right. We affirm. Plaintiffs' expert, Dr. Kalman Gold, testified by deposition upon his review of defendants' records that the perforation of Mrs. Thomas' bowel occurred during the tubal ligation procedure when the bowel was burned, either by direct contact with the cauterizer used in the procedure or by a defect in the cauterization machine which caused a spark to jump. He saw no evidence in the medical records as to what specific error in fact caused the perforation, however. Plaintiffs also presented the deposition testimony of defendant physician Woodworth. He stated that all normal precautions had been taken to insure that no tissues other than Mrs. Thomas' fallopian tubes were contacted by the cauterizer and that the cauterization machinery, owned by the health center, worked properly. Although Dr. Woodworth felt that there was a cause-and-effect relationship between the tubal ligation and the perforated bowel, neither he nor defendant physician Stuber, whose deposition testimony was also presented by plaintiffs, could specify the cause of the perforation.


Ebook Free Online "Louella Thomas and Billie Thomas V." PDF ePub Kindle