Horace

Horace v. Weyrauch

Good Law
159 Cal. App. 2d 833·1958 Cal. App. LEXIS 2076·324 P.2d 666·64 A.L.R. 2d 1276
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaMay 1, 1958Civ. 17613California2,055 words

Opinion

Opinion

Peters, J.

Following a subcutaneous injection by Dr. Weyrauch plaintiff developed an ulcer at the site of the injection. This required surgery to remove. She brought this action against the doctor, a specialist in radiology, alleging that the negligence of the doctor caused the ulcer. At the close of the evidence the trial court granted defendant’s motion for a directed verdict. Judgment was entered accordingly, and from that judgment plaintiff appeals.

On May 7, 1953, the plaintiff was referred by her regular physician to defendant for a pyelogram, which is an X-ray study of the urinary tract. It is made by the injection of an opaque iodine dye that stops the X-rays so that the inside of kidneys, ureter and bladder can be photographed.

Plaintiff testified that before making the injection the doctor did not ask whether she had any reactions to injections, nor did the doctor ask if plaintiff was sensitive to any particular substance, nor did the doctor make any reaction tests. The doctor first attempted to make the injection into the veins of the patient’s right arm, and, when this was not successful, tried to inject the fluid into another part of the arm and then into the wrist. No attempt…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.