Nature of the Case
To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.
Facts
P suffers from primary open angle glaucoma. P first consulted D for myopia, nearsightedness, in 1959. P got contact lenses. P next consulted Ds in September 1963, concerning irritation caused by the contact lenses. Additional consultations occurred in October 1963; February 1967; September 1967; October 1967; May 1968; July 1968; August 1968; September 1968; and October 1968. Until the October 1968 consultation, Ds considered the plaintiff's visual problems to be related solely to complications associated with her contact lenses. Eventually, they tested P's eye pressure and field of vision for the first time. P had glaucoma. P, who was then 32 years of age, had lost her peripheral vision and her central vision was reduced to approximately 5 degrees vertical by 10 degrees horizontal. The standard of the specialty does not require a glaucoma test for patients under the age of 40 because the risk is so slight. P sued D for negligence for not giving her the test earlier. D claims that he acted as an ordinary doctor in the situation because the standard of the profession (custom) does not require the test in patients under 40 because the risk is so low. However, the standards of the profession do say that the pressure test is required if glaucoma should be suspected. The jury returned a verdict for D. P appealed. The appellate court affirmed. P appealed.
Support@ bsmsphd.com
Casebriefs Co