The alleged malpractice suit : Thompson vs. Smith. Statement of experts and surgeons / Evidence reported by R.J. Hammond, reported for the Circuit court Nov. term, 1874, for Madison county, Iowa.
- Smith, A. B. (Arthur B.)
- Date:
- 1875
Licence: Public Domain Mark
Credit: The alleged malpractice suit : Thompson vs. Smith. Statement of experts and surgeons / Evidence reported by R.J. Hammond, reported for the Circuit court Nov. term, 1874, for Madison county, Iowa. Source: Wellcome Collection.
Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.
28/78 page 22
![SYIs^OPSIS OF THE ARGUMENT PRESENTED ON ^[OTIOX FOR A NEW TRIAL, BY T. C. GTLPIX, ESQ., ATT'Y FOE DEFEXDANT. Our first oLjection is, tlie verdict is not sustained by the evi- dence. There is not a j^artiele of evidence that the phiintiff's slionl- der was dish:)cated at the time defendant treated it on Sejyt. ^th, 1874. The plaintill'himself, nor any one of his witnesses, any where, pretended to swear tliat such was tlie case. And the only reason why the jury could possihlv have inferred tliat there was a dish>cation on tliat day is because it was claimed that there was a dislocation thirty-two days afterwards, on Oct. 6th, IST-x. And that was not testihed to any one positiyely, except by Dr. Leon- ard. Tlie other witnes.-es for ])laintiif do not testify positively that there was a dish)cation, wliile Dr. Sloan testified tliat lie was present when the shoulder was examined, that he examined it, with the otliers, and that he did not know that there was a dis- locatioiL Dr. Anderson testifies that he formed his opinion that there was a dislocation from what the others said and not from an examination of the shoulder. These slender statements are the only evidence that there was a dislocation, even on Oct. (Jth, from which to infer that there was one on Sept. 5th. For de- fence to this inference, we have the simple story of plaintiff, in which there is no pretence of dislocation on that day, corrobor- ated by his sister and brother-in-law, also the defendant, Mr. Seevers, Dr. Hutchinson, and Dr. Cooper as to the facts sur- rounding- the case at the time the injury was received, viz.: In- jury on the top of shoulder; Arm hung powerless by the side; Took the forearm in the other hand and carried it across the breast; Drooping of the injured shoulder and the defoiMiiity lU'iiiovod by ]U'essing u|) on the elbow; ^ The arm](https://iiif.wellcomecollection.org/image/b21078166_0028.jp2/full/800%2C/0/default.jpg)
