Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

UNRECOGNIZED MAGNETIC INTRA-OCULAR FOREIGN BODIES AND THEIR LEGAL ASPECTS

UNRECOGNIZED MAGNETIC INTRA-OCULAR FOREIGN BODIES AND THEIR LEGAL ASPECTS Abstract Two recent legal decisions relative to unrecognized magnetic intraocular foreign bodies clearly define the degree to which improvement in medical knowledge and skill creates a corresponding responsibility and legal liability. In the case of Kosal v. Boyce, 201 N. W. 757, decided by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in 1925,1 the plaintiff-patient was struck in the eye by part of a steel spring. The defendant-physician, who specialized in diseases of the eye, ear, nose and throat, treated the injury. According to the record, this physician examined the eye by the use of the ophthalmoscope, direct illumination and oblique focal rays, but failed to discover any foreign body in the eye. Several months later another physician, with the aid of roentgenograms, discovered a piece of steel in the eye. The plaintiff brought suit, and the lower court awarded him damages to the extent of $2,000. The Supreme Court of References 1. Roentgen-Ray Examination of Eye Required—Damages: Kosal v. Boyce (Wis.), 201 N. W. R. 757 , abstr., J. A. M. A. 85:219 ( (July 18) ) 1925.Crossref 2. Failure to Discover Foreign Body in Eye—Lippold v. Kidd (Ore.), 269, p. 210 , abstr., J. A. M. A. 92:1792 ( (May 25) ) 1929.Crossref 3. Shasted : American Encyclopedia of Ophthalmology , Chicago, Cleveland Press, 1917, vol. 10, p. 7183. 4. In a personal communication to the authors. 5. Beach v. Chollett, Ohio, 166, N. E. 145. 6. Shasted (footnote 3, vol. 9, p. 7160). 7. West v. Martin, 31, Mo. 375, 1861. 8. Jackson v. Burnham, 20, C. Col. 533. 9. Alsen : Klinische Erfahrungen über Augenverwundungen, 1913. 10. Military Surgery of the Eye (footnote 3, p. 7755). 11. Black, N. M., and Haessler, F. H.: Metallic Intra-Ocular Foreign Bodies not Demonstrable on Roentgenograms , J. A. M. A. 93:1043 ( (Oct. 5) ) 1929.Crossref http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Archives of Ophthalmology American Medical Association

UNRECOGNIZED MAGNETIC INTRA-OCULAR FOREIGN BODIES AND THEIR LEGAL ASPECTS

Archives of Ophthalmology , Volume 4 (2) – Aug 1, 1930

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-medical-association/unrecognized-magnetic-intra-ocular-foreign-bodies-and-their-legal-DUhpelw2Nh
Publisher
American Medical Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1930 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.
ISSN
0003-9950
eISSN
1538-3687
DOI
10.1001/archopht.1930.00810100040005
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Abstract Two recent legal decisions relative to unrecognized magnetic intraocular foreign bodies clearly define the degree to which improvement in medical knowledge and skill creates a corresponding responsibility and legal liability. In the case of Kosal v. Boyce, 201 N. W. 757, decided by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in 1925,1 the plaintiff-patient was struck in the eye by part of a steel spring. The defendant-physician, who specialized in diseases of the eye, ear, nose and throat, treated the injury. According to the record, this physician examined the eye by the use of the ophthalmoscope, direct illumination and oblique focal rays, but failed to discover any foreign body in the eye. Several months later another physician, with the aid of roentgenograms, discovered a piece of steel in the eye. The plaintiff brought suit, and the lower court awarded him damages to the extent of $2,000. The Supreme Court of References 1. Roentgen-Ray Examination of Eye Required—Damages: Kosal v. Boyce (Wis.), 201 N. W. R. 757 , abstr., J. A. M. A. 85:219 ( (July 18) ) 1925.Crossref 2. Failure to Discover Foreign Body in Eye—Lippold v. Kidd (Ore.), 269, p. 210 , abstr., J. A. M. A. 92:1792 ( (May 25) ) 1929.Crossref 3. Shasted : American Encyclopedia of Ophthalmology , Chicago, Cleveland Press, 1917, vol. 10, p. 7183. 4. In a personal communication to the authors. 5. Beach v. Chollett, Ohio, 166, N. E. 145. 6. Shasted (footnote 3, vol. 9, p. 7160). 7. West v. Martin, 31, Mo. 375, 1861. 8. Jackson v. Burnham, 20, C. Col. 533. 9. Alsen : Klinische Erfahrungen über Augenverwundungen, 1913. 10. Military Surgery of the Eye (footnote 3, p. 7755). 11. Black, N. M., and Haessler, F. H.: Metallic Intra-Ocular Foreign Bodies not Demonstrable on Roentgenograms , J. A. M. A. 93:1043 ( (Oct. 5) ) 1929.Crossref

Journal

Archives of OphthalmologyAmerican Medical Association

Published: Aug 1, 1930

References