Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealtrialtestimonyexpert witnessjury trial
plaintiffdefendantnegligenceappealmalpracticewill

Related Cases

Moser v. Heistand, 545 Pa. 554, 681 A.2d 1322
View Case »
Garcia v. Wyeth-Ayerst Laboratories, 385 F.3d 961, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 17,092, Prod.Liab.Rep. (CCH) P 17,157, 2004 Fed.App. 0346P
View Case »
Diggs v. Arizona Cardiologists, Ltd., 198 Ariz. 198, 8 P.3d 386, 327 Ariz. Adv. Rep. 8
View Case »
Blotner v. Doreika, 285 Ga. 481, 678 S.E.2d 80
View Case »
Berger v. Sonneland, 144 Wash.2d 91, 26 P.3d 257
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Jeanes v. Milner, 428 F.2d 598

Facts

Tommy Joe Jeanes, a thirteen-year-old boy, developed throat issues in August 1965 and was treated by Dr. E. L. Milner, who misdiagnosed his condition. After a series of examinations and treatments, a biopsy was performed, but the tissue slides were not sent to the appropriate specialists in a timely manner. By the time the slides were examined, Tommy's cancer had progressed significantly, leading to his eventual death in June 1967. The plaintiff alleged that the negligence of the doctors and the infirmary in diagnosing and treating Tommy contributed to his suffering and death.

The plaintiff's minor son, Tommy, died of cancer. His mother, administratrix of the estate, brought this malpractice action. She alleged that Dr. E. L. Milner, a throat specialist, was negligent in failing to properly diagnose, treat and manage her son's case; that Dr. William S. Orr, a pathologist, was negligent in failing to diagnose tissue taken from her son's throat as being malignant; and, that St. Vincent Infirmary was responsible for Dr. Orr's negligence.

Issue

Did the delay in the transmission of tissue slides constitute negligence that was a proximate cause of the patient's failure to recover from cancer, increased pain and suffering, or shortening of life?

Did the delay in the transmission of tissue slides constitute negligence that was a proximate cause of the patient's failure to recover from cancer, increased pain and suffering, or shortening of life?

Rule

Under Arkansas law, a physician must possess and exercise the degree of skill and learning of their profession, and expert testimony is required to establish the standard of care unless the negligence is within common knowledge.

We apply the following general principles in reviewing this case: (1) Arkansas law determines the standard of care required of the doctors and the Infirmary. Under that law: a physician is required to possess and exercise that degree of skill and learning possessed and exercised by members of his profession or specialty in the same or similar communities.

Analysis

The court found that the evidence presented could lead a jury to conclude that the delay in sending the slides was negligent and that this negligence could have contributed to Tommy's worsening condition. The court emphasized that expert testimony was not necessary to determine the reasonableness of the delay, as it was a matter within the understanding of laypersons. The court also noted that the plaintiff's expert witnesses indicated that early diagnosis and treatment were critical for survival.

We cannot agree with the District Court's holding that ‘there is no evidence from which the jury could find that the delay of approximately one month in the transmission of (the) slides could have been the proximate cause of (Tommy's) failure to recover from his cancer, or to increase his pain and suffering or to shorten his life.’

Conclusion

The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court's decision, allowing the case to proceed to trial, as there was sufficient evidence for a jury to consider the issues of negligence and proximate cause.

Reversed and remanded.

Who won?

The plaintiff prevailed in the appeal because the Court of Appeals found that there was enough evidence to warrant a jury trial regarding the negligence of the defendants.

The plaintiff, on appeal, contends that the defendants' negligence was not limited to their failure to transmit the slides but extended to a failure to properly diagnose, treat and manage the case.

You must be