 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Harris v. Hewitt3/11/2005
of fact for the jury's determination.
...
Dr. Sacklette testified that he contacted Dr. Wood and told him that Mrs. Merker needed attention; that Dr. Wood assured him there was no danger and he would take care of Mrs. Merker, but that it would not be necessary for him to see her until after the six weeks were up.
...
Thus we see there is an issue between Dr. Sacklette and Dr. Wood on a material point; also, between Dr. Wood and Mrs. Merker's daughter as to whether he would see his suffering patient within a reasonable time after notice from her daughter that she needed his attention. If the jury should reject the testimony of Dr. Wood and accept that of Dr. Sacklette relative to his conversation with Dr. Wood, or accept that of Mrs. Merker's daughter relative to returning her mother to the hospital, then Dr. Wood would be guilty of negligence and malpractice according to the standard he, himself, set as to the ordinary medical or surgical skill applied to the handling of such a case[.]
Likewise, in the case before us the standard of care has been established as a matter of law. The disputed issue in this case is one of fact and it centers on the conflicting evidence as to whether the doctors properly obtained informed consent from Venita. It will be the jury's role to determine whether informed consent was properly given. Therefore, summary judgment was erroneously granted to the doctors, and the appellants were properly denied summary judgment. Thus, we reverse that portion of the trial court's order granting summary judgment to the doctors, affirm that portion of the order denying summary judgment to the appellants, and hold the issue concerning Dr. Resnick's testimony to be moot.
ALL CONCUR.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Kentucky Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|