Morrison P. HELLING vs. Thomas F. CAREY

Get Started. It's Free
or sign up with your email address
Morrison P. HELLING vs. Thomas F. CAREY by Mind Map: Morrison P. HELLING vs. Thomas F. CAREY

1. Impact

1.1. Dorothy PEDERSON (as Guardian) v. Dr. M. L. Dumoushel

1.1.1. Plaintiff was injured in automobile accident and went to St. Joseph Hospital and was under the care of Dr. M.L. Dumouochel. Dr. Dumouchel referenced the patient to a dentist for a fractured jaw. Dr. Dumouchel examined the plaintiff for gross or minor brain injuries which none were found. The plaintiff began suffering convulsive seizures while in surgery. Dr. Dumouchel was not locatable during the surgery. The plaintiff suffered permanent brain damage from cerebral anoxia or hypoxia while he was anesthetized during surgery, and that cerebral anoxia or hypoxia was due to inadequate ventilation of the patient during the anesthesia or postoperative period.

2. Influence

2.1. Proper screening when patients present at the Hospital has been enhanced.

2.2. Physicians must be available On-Call for emergency situations. California Medicare Services has made this a requirement.

3. Importance

3.1. Physician will test everyone for glaucoma in efforts to rule out the disease.

4. Facts

4.1. Parties

4.1.1. Morrison P. Helling and Barbara Helling, his wife

4.1.2. Dr. Thomas F. Carey and Dr. Robert Laughlin

4.2. Helling had serious loss of vision due to glaucoma. Helling received regular eye exams from Dr. Carey. Helling sued Dr. Carey for malpractice due to negligence.

4.3. What Happened?

4.3.1. Previous eye exams Helling had received regular eye exams from 1959 to 1967 before being tested for glaucoma October 1968 Helling was diagnosed with glaucoma.

4.3.2. Helling sought consultation from other physicians in 1969

5. Issue

5.1. Was Dr. Carey negligent in not giving the pressure test o Helling?

6. Rule of Law

6.1. Negligence

6.1.1. Duty to provide standard care Heller request to recover damages for the gap in care which could have been addressed 9 years earlier.

6.1.2. Also the substandard profession which review standards for the profession. Because 1 in 25 have glaucoma under 40, the care plan for those under 40 should be reviewed to provide care. Heller's plea to recover damages

7. Analysis

7.1. Duty to provide standard care

7.1.1. Standard care do not require routine pressure tests for glaucoma patients under 40 years old. Patients under the age of 40 were rarely diagnosed with glaucoma. Dr. Carey maintained at trail that standards of the profession did not require pressure test if the patient's complaints and symptoms revel to the physician that glaucoma should be suspected for patients under the age of 40. In that neighborhood it was thought that 1 in 25,000 people or less have glaucoma under the age of 40. Heller's argument was that the one person Heller is entitled to the same protection, as afforded to persons over 40, essential for timely detection of the evidence of glaucoma.

7.1.2. Substandard profession which review standards for the profession. Heller: Dr. Carey did not examine Helling for glaucoma for 9 years and significant eye sight had been lost. Heller argued that Dr. Carey had a greater special ability, knowledge and information than other ophthalmologists which would require Dr. Carey to comply with a higher duty of care than that degree of care and skill which is expected of the average practitioner in the class to which he belongs. Dr. Carey maintained at trail that he was compliant with the standardar of the profession of ophthalmology, which does not require the giving of a routine pressure test to persons under 40 years old.

8. Conclusion

8.1. The jury ruled in favor of the Heller

8.1.1. Dr. Carey appealed the case The Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for a new trail on the issue of damages only.