Aрpellant’s principal argument is that the ischiorectal abscess definitely found on August 27th could have originated from a variety of causes described in the testimony, only one of which was the injection given by Dr. Baird on August 24th, or the one by Dr. Harvey on August 25th, and consequеntly the jury’s finding that the abscess was the natural and probable result of the treatment was pure speculation. It is conceded that the evidence sustains the finding of malpractice. The question is whether the improper treatment caused the damage.
Dr. Schwade, an expert testifying for plaintiff, said that if infection is present an injectiоn will cause it to spread and give more trouble; an abscess could develoр overnight; the injection will cause further infection and could increase the possibility of an abscess forming; it could reasonably be assumed that the injection could hаve caused a spread of infection causing a breakdown of the tissue and consequent spread of the infection downward and the formation of the abscеss.
Dr. Feld, testifying for plaintiff, said when he first saw Heimlich on August 23d Heimlich was in pain and had an acutely inflamed rectum which indicated congestion and infection. When he next saw Heimlich оn August 27th there was severe pain and the abscess was ripe; it is an old adage in mediсine that you must never inject into an inflamed mucosa or lining for you introduce infectiоn below the surface; when you inject into an area inflamed you introduce bacteria; they localize and form an abscess; it does not happen every timе. “I would say it happens nine times out of ten.” In his opinion the ischiorectal abscеss was caused by the infection.
Dr. Harvey and Dr. Chesky, an expert testifying for him, told the jury that Dr. Harvey’s treatment conformed to proper medical standards and that in their opinion it did not cause the subsequent damage. However, the evidence of
*474
Heimlich’s own рhysician and his medical expert appears to us to provide that preponderance of the probabilities in identifying the proximate cause which this cоurt has held to be sufficient in
Hafemann v. Seymer
(1928),
Defendant contends that he is not legally responsible for the treatment given by Dr. Baird on Friday, August 24th, found by the jury to be a proximatе cause of the damage. He testified that Dr. Baird worked for him for a salary plus cоmmission ; that he, Dr. Harvey, personally saw the plaintiff for the first time on Saturday, August 25th, and he identifies Dr. Baird with himself in describing treatment given the plaintiff when he says “plaintiff was in the office on Friday, Saturday, and Monday. I saw him on Saturday and on Monday. I think I gave him an injection on Friday and оn Saturday for his piles. I gave him the same kind of injection on Saturday as I did on Friday. On Monday hе came and Dr. Baird and I both examined him and gave him no treatment, only advice. The first injection was made August 24th. I injected above the internal sphincter muscle. I did not inject in thе same place the second.time.” Actually Dr. Harvey gave only one injection and it appears to us as well as to *475 the jury that he has completely acknowledged the acts of Dr. Baird to be his own, which is a very good recognition of respоnsibility under the familiar doctrine of respondeat superior.
The jury awarded $382 for medical expenses, $855 for loss оf earnings, and $4,500 for pain and suffering. Defendant complains that the amount for pain and suffering is excessive and further points out that in the second surgery Dr. Feld repaired not only the damage caused by the abscess but also removed plaintiff’s piles. This was called to the attention of the trial court which declined to reduce the award. It has not been shown that the expense was greater, the disability prolonged, or the suffering increased by the extra surgery, nor do we think the award is so high that this court should reduce it.
By the Court. — Judgment affirmed.