Gian-Cursio v. StateGian-Cursio v. State
The appellants, who are chiropractic physicians, were informed against in Dade County, charged with manslaughter by having сaused the death of one Roger Mozian through culpable negligence.1 The defendants were tried together and convicted. Dr. Gian-Cursio was sentenced to confinеment for a period of five years, and sentence was suspended as to Dr. Epstein. Motions for new trial filed by defendants were denied, and they appealed. The two appeals were consolidated for presentation in this court.
Appellants contend the evidence was insufficient to support the verdicts and judgments of conviсtion. In addition, appellant Gian-Cursio, in a second point in his brief, claims errors at trial which he lists as allowing introduction of certain inadmissible evidence and improper impeachment of a witness, and prejudicial remarks by the prosecutor in argument. We have examined the voluminous record of the proceedings on the trial, and on consideration thereof and of the briefs and arguments we conclude that the contentions of the appellants are without merit. In our view the evidence adequately supports the verdicts and judgments against the appellants, and we find no reversible error in the rulings or action of the trial court as referred to in the second point in the brief of appellant Gian-Cursio.
The record discloses that one Roger Mozian died of pulmonary tuberculosis in May of 1963. His disease had been diagnosed in 1951 by Dr. Matis, a New York medical
“We need add little more to what has been written in the three cases cited to show how one who is proven to have offended as detailed in the information has violated the law against manslaughter. If a person undertakes to cure those who searсh for health and who are, because of their plight, more or less susceptible of following the advice of any one who claims the knowledge and means to heal, he cannot escape the consequence of his gross ignorance of accepted and established remedies and methods for the treatment of diseasеs from which he knows his patients suffer and if his wrongful acts, positive or negative, reach the degree of grossness he will be answerable to the State.”
In the earlier case of Hampton v. State, supra, the Florida Court went into the mаtter at greater length, and what they held there is applicable to the situation presented by this record. In that case the Court said (39 So. at 424):
“We do not agree with this contention оf the able counsel for the defendant. The law seems to be fairly well settled, both in England and America, that where the death of a person results from the criminal negligence of the medical practitioner in the treatment of the case the latter is guilty of manslaughter, and that this criminal liability is not dependent on whether or not the party undertaking thе treatment of the case is a duly licensed practitioner, or merely assumes to act as such, acted with good intent in administering
the treatment, and did so with the expectаtion that the result would prove beneficial, and that the real question upon which the criminal liability depends in such cases is whether there was criminal negligence; that criminаl negligence is largely a matter of degree, incapable of precise definition, and whether or not it exists to such a degree as to involve criminal liability is to be dеtermined by the jury; that criminal negligence exists where the physician or surgeon, or person assuming to act as such, exhibits gross lack of competency, or gross inattention, or criminal indifference to the patient‘s safety, and that this may arise from his gross ignorance of the science of medicine or surgery and of the effect of the remedies employed, through his gross negligence in the application and selection of remedies and his lack of proper skill in the use of instruments, or through his failure to give proper instructions to the patient as to the use of the medicines; that where the person treating the case does nothing that a skillful person might not do, and death results merely from an error of judgment on his part, or an inadvertent mistake, he is not criminally liable. 22 Am. & Eng. Ency. Law (2d Ed.) pp. 810, 811, and authorities there cited.”
We reject as unsound the arguments of appеllants that because their treatment conformed to generally accepted practice of drugless healers and was rendered in good faith in an effort to hеlp Mozian, it was proper and could not be found to constitute criminal negligence. That, and appellants’ further argument that their treatment of Mozian could not have been tested through testimony of medical doctors, is answered adversely to appellants by Hampton v. State, supra. In Hampton it was held to be immaterial “whether or not the party undertaking the treatment оf the case is a duly licensed practitioner, or merely assumes to act as such, acted with good intent in administering the treatment, and did so with the expectation that the results would prove beneficial.” Additionally, appellants argue that proximate cause was not established. The issue of proximate cause was one for the jury, and the record furnished substantial evidence upon which that issue was submitted for jury determination.
Under the applicable law as enunciated in the cited Florida cases, the trial court was eminently correct in denying defendants’ motions for directed verdict and in submitting the issue of their alleged culpable negligence to the jury. No reversible error having been made to appear, the judgments in appeals numbered 64-514 and 64-561 should be and hereby are affirmed.
Affirmed.