Brook v. St. John's Hickey Memorial Hospita

380 N.E.2d 72 (1978)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

P was diagnosed as having a possible urological disorder and that X-rays taken with a contrast medium would be necessary to confirm the diagnosis. Fischer (D), a radiologist, injected the contrast medium into the calves of both of P's legs because he was unable to find a vein which he could use. The manufacturer's directions for injecting the contrast medium recommended that the contrast medium be injected into the buttocks. Fischer (D) had read articles in medical journals which warned against making intramuscular injections into the buttocks or thighs especially in tiny children because possible nerve and muscle damage could result. Fischer (D) chose to inject the contrast medium into the calves of Tracy's legs because after the buttocks and the thighs, they were the next largest muscle mass away from the trunk of the body. Four months later, P began to have trouble with her right leg. Her leg was stiff and her heel began to lift off the ground. This was diagnosed as a shortening of the Achilles tendon, which may have been precipitated by some kind of trauma to her ankle or calf muscle. After two operations and other expensive treatment, including the wearing of a leg brace, Tracy's problem was substantially corrected.' P brought this action against Ds accusing them all of conducting a medical experiment by using P’s calves. The court refused to give P’s jury instruction that stated 'You are instructed that a Radiologist is not limited to the most generally used of several modes of procedure and the use of another mode known and proved by the profession is proper, but every new method of procedure should pass through an experimental stage in its development and a Radiologist is not authorized in trying untested experiments on patients.' P alleged that Fischer (D) was negligent in choosing an injection site that had not been specifically recommended by the medical community and the use of an unusual injection site was a medical experiment. The trial court refused to give this instruction because no substantial evidence of a medical experiment had been introduced. Ds got the verdict and P appealed. The Court of Appeals upheld the verdict except for Fischer (D). D appealed.