The alleged malpractice suit : Thompson vs. Smith. Statement of experts and surgeons / Evidence reported by R.J. Hammond, reported for the Circuit court Nov. term, 1874, for Madison county, Iowa.

  • Smith, A. B. (Arthur B.)
Date:
1875
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: The alleged malpractice suit : Thompson vs. Smith. Statement of experts and surgeons / Evidence reported by R.J. Hammond, reported for the Circuit court Nov. term, 1874, for Madison county, Iowa. Source: Wellcome Collection.

Provider: This material has been provided by the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, through the Medical Heritage Library. The original may be consulted at the Francis A. Countway Library of Medicine, Harvard Medical School.

    23/78 (page 17)
    Des jVIoines, Iowa. Dr. C. H. Kamson, certifies that he has carefully read the evi- dence in the case of Thompson m. Smith. And that from the statement of Thompson, himself, how the injury was caused, and how he carried his arm, I do not see how there could have been a subclavicular or a subcoracoid dislocation. Having examined the evidence in the case of Hugh Thomp- son 'VS. Dr. A. B. Smith, I do not hesitate to denounce in plain terms the finding of the jury. The evidence of the plaintiff sim- ply verifies the correctness of Dr. Smith's diagnosis and treat- ment. Tv this add the testimony of all the experts called in the case, and the verdict rendered seems to have been actuated by some- thing far from a sense of the facts in the case, or a desire to do justice. The statemejit <»f the seven jurymeu, who state that it was not their vei'dict should n(»t only place Dr. Smith unspotted before the profession and community, but should put to shame such unjust proceedings. Ge(.». P. Hanawalt, M. D. Des Moines, Iowa, May 12th, 1875. Letter from Dr. Davis. ludiajuda, Iowa: I was present during tlie trial of the all ged malpractice suit of Thomps<jn f-y. Smith, and most unhesitatingly say that the testi- mony of tiie plaintiff and the physicians for the prosecution was amply sufiicient to prove to any unbiased mind that Dr. Smith vva» correct in his diagnosis and treatment in every particular. There could not have been a dislocation of any kind according to the testimony of the prosecuting witnesses; they failed to. make out the least shadow of a case agrainst Dr. Smith, The well known reputation of Dr. Smith as a sue] cessful physician and surgeon, and his popularity among his pa- tients was envied by some members of his profession, hence in the opinion of many the man Thompson was urged to sue. The Doctor b_y suecesw in liis ju'ofession has accumulated some prop- erty, and no doubt Thomoson was made to believe he could make