Hall V. Hilbun Essay

456 Words2 Pages
Husband of decedent, who died of adult respirational distress syndrome, brought malpractice action in illogicality of overall surgeon who achieved investigative laparotomy on decedent. The Circuit Court, Jackson County, Darwin M. Maples, J., arrived absorbed decision for surgeon, and husband appealed. The Supreme Court, Robertson, J., held that: surgeon learned concern to perform all facets of surgery with that level of capability and meticulousness as might be expected of minimally experienced surgeons under the situations in the United States and to direct postoperative care and to insure that, with respect to all postoperative dangers or problems reasonably to be anticipated under situations, passable provision was made for prompt diagnosis and treatment, and each of two proffered medical experts should have been permissible to testify concerning physician's standard of care, even though they were from another region of the country. Reversed and imprisoned for new trial. Hawkins, J., filed specially concurring opinion. Patterson, C.J., filed opinion unorthodox in part and like-minded in part, in which Walker, P.J., joined the dissenting part. Roy Noble Lee, P.J., filed opinion like-minded in part and rebellious in part, in which Dan M. Lee, J., joined the compatible part, and Walker, P.J., joined nonconformist part. Duty: Duty exists when the physician-patient affiliation has been traditional. The persevering has required the support of the physician, and the physician has knowingly assumed to provide the needed medical service. Dereliction: Dereliction, or failure to perform a duty, is the second component required. There must be proof that the physician somehow neglected the duty to the patient. Direct cause: There must be resilient that the harm to the enduring was directly produced 3 Running Head: Hall v. Hilbun By the physician's activities

More about Hall V. Hilbun Essay

Open Document