Shockley v. Tucker
Supreme Court of Iowa
Appeal from Marshall District Court.— HoN. G. W. Buejst-ham, Judge. AotioN to recover damages for injuries suffered by plaintiff by having bis body burned by the use of an X-ray machine, while being treated by defendant, as a physician, for appendicitis. Verdict and judgment for plaintiff. Defendant appeals.
1Opinion of the CourtMcClaiN, J.
*4571. Malpractice: improper treatment; evidence. *456The allegations of the petition are broad *457enough to cover negligence in the use of the X rays as a treatment for appendicitis, and also negligence in the method in which the X rays were used; and evidence was . .. - „ introduced for plaintm as to both iorms oí negligence. The complaint of appellant with reference to the testimony of physicians that the X-ray treatment was not a proper one for appendicitis was objected to on the ground that the witnesses did not belong to the same school of medicine as the defendant, and counsel argues that a…
2Cited by32 opinions
- Porter v. PuryearTexas Supreme Court · 1953
- Whetstine v. MoravecSupreme Court of Iowa · 1940
- Hunter v. BurroughsSupreme Court of Virginia · 1918
- Christie v. CallahanCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1941
- Greenberg v. Michael Reese HospitalIllinois Supreme Court · 1980
27 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.