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.

JACLYN EARLIN v. HOWARD CRAVETZ (03/16/79)

decided: March 16, 1979.

JACLYN EARLIN
v.
HOWARD CRAVETZ, M.D., APPELLANT



No. 1476 October Term, 1978, Appeal from the Judgment Entered April 12, 1978, of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, Civil Division, at No. 4298 May Term, 1971.

COUNSEL

John J. O'Brien, Jr., Philadelphia, for appellant.

Martin Heller, Philadelphia, for appellee.

Cercone, Hester and Hoffman, JJ. Cercone, President Judge, and Hoffman, J., concur in the result.

Author: Hester

[ 264 Pa. Super. Page 296]

This is an appeal from the Order of the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia County denying appellant's motion for judgment N.O.V. or in the alternative, a new trial.

Appellee instituted this action in trespass on May 25, 1971 against appellant (a medical doctor). The complaint alleged negligence in the treatment of appellee's left shoulder. The case proceeded to trial before a jury on May 26, 1977 and on June 1, 1977 a verdict was returned in favor of appellee in the amount of $25,000.00.

Testimony and exhibits at trial produced the following factual situation:

Appellee suffered from chronic pain in her left shoulder and on the left side of her back. She was successfully treated for that problem in 1968 by a Dr. Singer, who prescribed the drug "butozoladen" (taken orally).

On May 1, 1971, appellee was experiencing the same type pains as above and called Dr. Singer. However, he was out of town and appellee was referred to appellant.

After being contacted by appellee, via telephone, appellant refused to refill a prescription for "butozoladen" over the phone and advised her to come to his office.

After examining appellee, appellant determined that the more advisable method of treatment would be to inject pain-relieving drugs directly into the affected area. Appellee was reluctant to receive an injection, but finally consented to the treatment. Thereupon appellant proceeded to inject 10 c.c.'s of a solution of "hydrocortisone, xzlocaine and pontocaine" into the shoulder area of appellee's back.

The above treatment, however, provided no relief for appellee. Immediately following the injection, she complained of severe chest pains. Appellant advised her to sit down in his office for a few minutes, as she was ...


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.