Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

CHANDLER v. COOK (05/27/70)

decided: May 27, 1970.

CHANDLER, APPELLANT,
v.
COOK



Appeal from judgments of Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, July T., 1965, No. 3025, in case of Raymond M. Chandler v. Thomas W. Cook, Sr. et al.

COUNSEL

Donnell D. Reed, with him Davis & Reed, for appellant.

John J. Klein and Bruce R. Martin, with them Harvey E. Schauffler, for appellees.

Bell, C. J., Jones, Cohen, Eagen, O'Brien, Roberts and Pomeroy, JJ. Opinion by Mr. Justice O'Brien.

Author: O'brien

[ 438 Pa. Page 448]

The Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County entered a compulsory non-suit against the plaintiff, appellant here, Raymond Chandler. Following the refusal

[ 438 Pa. Page 449]

    of the court en banc to remove the non-suit, plaintiff appealed.

Chandler sued both Thomas W. Cook, Sr., M.D., and Doctors' Hospital, a nonprofit corporation, for injuries arising out of an operation performed upon Chandler by Dr. Cook at the hospital. The suit against Dr. Cook was originally based on both a negligence (malpractice) theory and an assault and battery theory, while that against the hospital was based on negligence. During the course of the trial, the negligence count against Dr. Cook was dropped by the plaintiff.

As a defense to the assault and battery count, the defendant doctor asserts that plaintiff consented to the operation and, in support of his position, relies upon two authorizations signed by the plaintiff when he was admitted to the hospital. These stated:

"I hereby agree to allow myself to be operated upon if the physician in charge of the Doctors' Hospital thinks it is necessary.

"I hereby authorize the physician in charge of the care of Raymond M. Chandler to administer any treatment; or to administer such anesthetics; and perform such operations as may be deemed necessary or advisable in the diagnosis and treatment of this patient."

It is elementary that on an appeal from the refusal to remove a non-suit, we must view the evidence in a light most favorable to the plaintiff. Smith v. Pittsburgh Railways Co., 405 Pa. 340, 175 A.2d 844 (1961). The plaintiff testified that he experienced pain in his chest area, and consulted Dr. Cook. After an examination, Dr. Cook informed him that an appendectomy was required. The doctor then proceeded to administer a shot to relieve the pain and made arrangements to have him admitted to Doctors' Hospital. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.