Appeal from order of Court of Common Pleas, Trial Division, of Philadelphia, Dec. T., 1962, No. 4117, in case of Herbert S. Muller and Rebecca D. Muller, his wife v. Dr. William Likoff.
Robert M. Ross, with him B. Nathaniel Richter, and Richter, Syken, Ross & Levant, for appellants.
Dolores B. Spina, with her Pepper, Hamilton & Scheetz, for appellee.
Wright, P. J., Watkins, Jacobs, Hoffman, Spaulding, Cercone, and Spaeth, JJ. Opinion by Hoffman, J.
[ 225 Pa. Super. Page 111]
In this appeal, the question is whether the trial court erred in granting defendant's motion for non-suit. The
[ 225 Pa. Super. Page 112]
principal issue is whether the plaintiffs-appellants produced sufficient evidence upon which a jury could reasonably conclude that an agency relationship existed between Dr. Likoff, the defendant-appellee, and a hospital nurse.
On March 10, 1962, wife-plaintiff, Rebecca D. Muller, was admitted to Hahnemann Hospital, in Philadelphia, for treatment of coronary disease. During this hospitalization, Mrs. Muller was under the care of the appellee, Dr. William Likoff. Four days after admission, Dr. Likoff prescribed Heparin which was to be administered subcutaneously every six hours. The treatment was followed as prescribed with no untoward results. On the occasion in question, however, one Luba Stern, a registered nurse employed by Hahnemann, allegedly injected the Heparin directly into the femoral nerve.*fn1 As a result of the injection, appellant experienced immediate and excruciating pain, and subsequently developed a permanent neuropathy of her right leg.
Appellants instituted suit against Dr. Likoff. At the close of plaintiff's case, Judge Harry A. Takiff granted defendant's motion for non-suit. It is from a denial of a motion to strike off non-suit by a court en banc that this appeal has been taken.
After a review of the record in this case and the applicable law, we are unable to say that the trial court erred in granting appellee's motion for non-suit.
A non-suit should only be entered in a clear case. It is basic that on review the plaintiff must be given the benefit of all favorable testimony and every reasonable inference arising therefrom. Any conflict must be resolved in favor of plaintiff. ...