Helling v Carey - Summary The Torts Process PDF

Preview

Summary

Case Brief...

Description

Helling v. Carey Plaintiff: Patient Defendant: Ophthalmologists STATEMENT OF THE CASE FACTS  Plaintiff, who was 32 years of age was diagnosed with glaucoma, which had seriously impaired her vision.  ∆’s had given her routine eye exams for several years, but did not administer a test that would have revealed the glaucoma in time to treat it effectively.  The contradicted testimony was that the test for glaucoma is not routinely given to persons under 40 because the incidence of the disease in the age group is only 1 in 25,000. PROCEDURAL HISTORY 1. Plaintiff sues the defendant for negligence. 2. In keeping with precedent, the trial judge instructed the jury, in effect, that the standard to which the defendants must conform is the custom (non-negligence behavior) within their medical specialty. 3. Jury returned its verdict for the defendants, upon which the trial judge entered judgment. 4. Intermediate appellate court affirmed, the plaintiff appealed. P Argues: In her review, she contends that the trial judge erred in giving certain instructions to the jury and refusing her proposed instructions defining the standard of care which the law imposes upon an ophthalmologist. She was unable to argue her case to the jury that shows the standard of care for the specialty of ophthalmology and the defendants were negligent in failing to give the test to the plaintiff earlier which would have enabled the defendants to averted the loss in her vision. ∆ Argues: Defendant argues that the standard of the profession is adequate to insulate them from liability for negligence because the risk for glaucoma is so rare in that age group. ISSUE Does the defendant’s compliance with the standard of the profession of ophthalmology, which does not require the giving of a routine pressure test to persons under 40 years of age, insulate them from liability under the facts where the plaintiff has lost a substantial amount of her vision because the defendants didn’t give her a pressure test in a timely manner? HOLDING No. Although the incidence of glaucoma in individuals under the age of 40 is 1 out of 25,000 persons, that one person who suffers deserves the same protection as the others. COURT’S RATIONALE  The reasonable standard that should have been followed under the undisputed facts of this case was the timely giving of this simple, harmless pressure test to this plaintiff and that, in failing to do so, the defendants were negligent, which proximately resulted in the blindness by the plaintiff for which the defendants are liable.  Even though the chances were 1 in 25,000 the one person is entitled to the same protection as afforded to other people, essential for timely detection of the evidence of glaucoma where it can be arrested to avoid the grave and devastating result of this disease.

The test is a simple pressure test, relatively inexpensive. Based it off of Hand’s ruling in T.J. Hooper. Rejected compliance with the custom as being non-negligent. o “Courts must in the end say what is required; there are precautions so imperative that even their universal disregard will not excuse their omission.” o It isn’t even evidence, custom so out of whack  Custom- compliance with custom RESULT The judgment of the trial court and the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages only. (For plaintiff). CONCURRING OPINION Urged that liability of ∆’s in this case be strict, rather than based upon negligence to avoid, “imposing a stigma of moral blame upon the doctors….”  ...