Joseph v. W. H. Groves Latter Day Saints Hospital

39' principles espoused. with the How

ever, fac distinguishable them consider

tually, passing, suggest that those presented annot

authorities in the A.L.R. cases complementing

аtion one of the which significance,2 attach defendants instant

factually nearly most resemble the

case, prefer conclu go along with the

sion court here. reached the trial CROCKETT,

McDONOUGH, J.,C. WORTHEN, concur. JJ.,

WADE and

318 P.2d 330 JOSEPH, Guard- himself and as

Charles children, Lee Tamara ad litem for ian Appellant, Melanie, Plaintiff and DAY LATTER SAINTS

W. H. GROVES HOSPITAL, corporation, H. and Dr. J. Respondents. Carlquist, Defendants

No. 8557.

Supreme Utah. Court of

Nov. 1957. 1105-1107. A.L.R.

1. 131 Powell, Inc., v. Great American &

2. Cohen Co., Indemnity A.2d Conn. 131 A.L.R. incompatible

ministered a transfusion of kidney blood which brought infec- on the tion, proximately causing her death. The two par- basic issues contested ties (1) were: Joseph Did receive Mrs. incompatible blood transfusion died; so, (2) she was the de- fendant negligent in connection ‍‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‍stop administering it, failing it after an unfavorable reaction no- ticed. The case was submitted to the which returned a verdict of no cause of appeals, action. Plaintiff error in charging certain rulings relating of the trial court to evidence and instructions.

The controversy over the rulings on evi- dence devolves the sustaining of de- objection fendant’s plaintiff’s to permitting counsel to read and use in argument his Searle, Hansen, George Elias Salt certain H. entries City, appellants. record doctors, for made Lake two L. Rees and V. Crockett, Kenneth A. who had been called Nebeker, Ray Quinney Albert & R. Bow-' in to respect consult with to the treatment respondents. en, City, for Lake Salt Joseph. of Mrs. The notations which coun- CROCKETT, sel indicated a Justice. desire to read are as follows: operation “Pelvic days following Laparoling an Ten 4-453 followed tumor, immediately by almost Joseph a Mrs. of Lucille a chill removal and dark * * * Hospital pt urine. the L. D. S. of a “lower This is going died into type neрhrosis” (inflammation some nephron decompensation renal possible Plaintiff, husband, on brought her kidneys). basis of a transfusion * * children, alleg- himself and reaction action for Signed this “V. L. negligently had ad- Rees.” that n “Q. say you did do be- page You same

And at the bottom now might lieve that that have caused Progress Notes: proof it? IA. have no of it. Neph- “This a Lower undoubtedly is Syndrome Blood from hemolitic rons “Q. probable cause That the most “KAC” Signed transfusion it, A. never been isn’t’ it. have prove able to it. bearing direct have a entries The above >}t í{í ?}i ^ disputed issue: whether on a critical in- Joseph a transfusion received Mrs. “Q. properly If this had been death. caused her compatible blood typed, haematolysis this not havе would Sundwall, who trial, ‍‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‍Val During occurred, would it? A. I have never operation on the initial performed any haematolysis had seen evidence of pa- opinion the his testified April this case. a blood result of probably died as

tient i{c ífc However, Dr. reaction. transfusion John “Q. you very But doubt much director pathologist Carlquist, the H. haematolysis, she had right? callеd who was hospital, at the laboratories Yes, sir; A. I was never able to patient tests and made in on the case prove any haematolysis was took there who developed, and difficulties after place. blood field of expert qualified as iji '¡i ‡ i]C sub- being typing, transfusions “Q. Now, your testimony, coun- it is searching examination to a jected clear, pаtient obviously make didn’t evasive plaintiffs, was sel No, haematolysis sir, ? there A. I was concede refused persistently prove any Joseph never able to hae- Mrs. proof any definite of, matolysis. a result received, died either borne out This reaction. transfusion “Q. But was like- the most testimony: following extracts injury kidney ly to her obvious? —most **>1= It was one that had to A. be con- nephrosis now, that “Q. sidered, not, by this incom- caused, itwas was have never said IA. patible blood? representative but The above are ex- that. cerpts pages from several of similar testi- wasn’t, Carlquist. say mony it of Dr. The didn’t fact that

“Q. But you said, repeatedly no refused admit that I had there was you? A. did any from which incompatible evidence a could blood. conclusion it was proof

43 recog- in- regard. that We have heretofore had patient be drawn that the hospital her entering nized that on of data compatible blood transfusion by personnel one, engaged carries plainly so death resulted from shows represent guarantees sufficient of trustworthiness in the record did entries testimony render them in evidence admissible merely recapitulation of other worthy finder by of consideration the fact trial, reason- but could brought at the out connecting with ably his testi- the other evidence interpreted opposed to Joseph ex- case.3 The doctors attending Mrs. mony. evidence therefore theory come such within classification and plaintiff’s importance to the trеme they was entries made record issue of death. That to the cause in In- in connection with in render- their duties the court submitted to patient medical service to are com- They told struction No. 13. petent for such Mrs. evidence to considered “the believed that death Jo- purpose. suggested plaintiff could ad- It is seph than the from cause othеr * * *” But have called the incompatible doctors as witnesses. ministration of why “no should he do so if he was satisfied with return a verdict of then must likewise, defendant, The records. could cause of action.” have called the had ‍‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‍it desired. doctors urges inasmuch as Defendant Anent regard defendant’s contention in made notations were the doctors who might obviously matter which be inadmis- hospital, entries employees sible, e.g. might entries be made which binding upon admissible were neither nor persons unauthorized having connection no other rulings aware it. areWe it, remark aside that if some med- jurisdictions record evi that exclude such duty dler, having legitimate no nor business opinions But are reflected.1 where dence so, dоing made entries view admits evi we adhere record, explanation subject would be question not character here dence of the hospital, present facts not here. represents withstanding the fact that that, argues defendant opinions patient’s further as to part doctors’ assuming competent notations recorded are evi The nоtations were condition.2 dence, pertinent care was nevertheless but harmless deemed as information by persons performing duties error for the court to sustain his ob- treatment 677, 663; People g. v. York Ins. Co. 365 Mo. 285 S.W.2d Cal.App.2d New Life e. 1. See U.S.App.D.C. Gorgol, 281, Taylor, 147 F.2d 69. 297. Estate, Estate, 2d 3.In Richard’s 5 Utah 2d re Richards’ re Public, 542; Allen v. P.2d 542. St. Louis P.2d áá

jection being argued to be of moment to read sufficient that there is a rea- actually jury records sonable likelihood that because the the absence been received in evidence and were such result error different would have they eventuated, for the jury regarded to read if desired. should so the error be suggests, therefore, prejudicial could granted. result as and relief should be assay not have been different in the absence of Measured such considerations we possible complained in accord We are aware of and of the error error. effect of, realizing quite a case with the to reverse course that it is now mandate error, merely impossible definitely will do so because of and we to tell whether only appears prejudicial to to when it be verdict would have been different. rights party.4 Neither this statu- of a regard suggestion that the tory mandate, policy we nor follow to evidence require thereunder, far goes so as to desired, pertinent they look read if ignore may have a sub- we errors themselves, quoted in the at the notations upоn the outcome of a trial.5 stantial effect paragraph opinion. third of this It will always easy tell when an It is hardly be are couched denied prejudicial, regarded error should be terms that could some elab such stand court in the division of attested uninitiated oration the benefit of those survey all of necessary to It is case. mysteries terminology. оf medical disclosed the facts and circumstances emphasizes importance This of accord if, ap error doing, in so the record and plaintiff’s opportunity of ing counsel the can be pears to of such nature that performing one of essential functions: ma that it was of no said with assurance jury. that of his case to the In do arguing upon the consequence in terial its effect so, permitted he refer to should reasonable minds would because competent all he and use evidence result, regardless of at same arrived trial, presented in the has marshalled and error, be harmless it would war explain meaning trial would not be argue a new its its granting of hand, appears if it other significаnce ranted. On to his client’s cause.6 U.R.C.P.; Simpson, 61, Mad v. See Startin Ins. Co. 4. Rule Accident v. 6. Standard 834, 631, 85; sen, 564, and au 237 P.2d Fla. 120 151 10 So.2d v. Utah Givans Chicago, P., Ry. Co., cited. & St. M. O. 238 thorities Co., 306, & R. R. v. Denver G. W. Minn. 56 N.W.2d Bowden 38 A.L.R. 1393; 240; Annotation, 1396; Startin 2d Utah 2d 38 A.L.R.2d 834; Am.Jur., Trial, Madsen, P.2d 120 Utah § 453. Co., Pedro, Boyd L. L. R. A. & S. v. Sam 449, 146 P. 282. importance *,”7 Some indication of the tion accordingly we comment briefly the error with which are here con assignments on two other of error. cerned he found the fact that counsel plaintiff’s first contention thought consequence the matter of sufficient that a nurse who cared for could deceased objected reading to the use express opinion not given an that she was jury. argument the evidence the to the good nursing objection care. was on The in strikes the writer as somewhat being grоund very the this was the issue to consistent that de urges that counsel now jury be decided the thus the witness priving plaintiff the use such evidence of of province. objection invaded its This is merely plain If it is harmless error. testimony untenable. Whether the of an helped plaintiff’s it would not have expert very is as to issue the “the before case, why is led counsel made onе to wonder jury” proper is not a test as admis to its objection the it not be insisted sibility. subject inquiry the Where is used. obvious to be that answer seems beyond in a field the knowledge gen actually apprehen defendant’s counsel was erally possessed by laymen, ‍‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‍properly one may effect sive that it have a substantial qualified may permitted to testi be agаinst course, his Of he could client. fy opinion opin expert. to his an If as the sure, nor can we. jury ion evidence is such that it aid will sub- fact that there is such In view the understanding problems and lead cannot, any de- stantial doubt that we disputed them to truth as issues assurance, the use of affirm that gree of fact, admissible, competent it is irre helpful not have been evidеnce would spective directly upon it whether bears resolved doubt should be plaintiff, to the ultimate fact is to determine.8 a full and him allowing to have in favor judge the trial And allowed a wide dis jury. presentation of his cause fair cretion in regard to allowance of such testimony.9 ordered, it is our being A new * questions all upon

duty “pass Concerning an instruction which presented upon the case involved in of law purportedly singled ground out one of al others; appeal necessary to final determina- leged negligence and thus excluded 76(a), Co., Utah, 7. Rule U.R.C.P. v. Allen Oil Wisconsin 258 Wycoff, 445; Hooper v. Motors, 8. Baker v. 95 Utah 79 P.2d P.2d Utah, General 77; Bowman, Cir., 549; O’Brien, Jiminez v. United States v. 10 716; Wigmore, F.2d Evidence 213 P.2d 337. Sec. seq.; McCormick, p. Bowman, supra; 1918 еt Evidence 9. See United States 25; separate opinions p. McCormick, 26; Wigmore see Justice Wade’s Evidence Employers’ Liability Evidence, in: Mutual Ins. Secs. Co. wall, upon may physician, be well the court attending it was shown retrial it; yet sample a dark rephrasing- instruc- of urine which indicated that consider together, probably urine, all he tions considered are said be, fairly consulted doubt that it can with Dr. Rees and Dr. must Crockett. plaintiff anything had the the instruction effect Whether else before suggests. them other than other notations on the appear. These record does ap- trial. Remanded for new Costs elementary important, facts are since pellants. opinion person give expert, a testimony foundation for his must WORTHEN, JJ., concur. WADE and qualifications be laid showing his extent of information bases McDONOUGH, (dissent- Chief Justice his conclusions. The absence such show- ing). significant more when is recalled in the decision of to concur and Dr. unable Crockett Rees were both am subpoenaed plaintiff, it is held that present wherein majority prejudicial error in testify! in court and committed were not called trial court permission argue only to the explanation to The in appellant’s offered refusing counsel hospital record in the brief for calling the doctors the notations is jury the by following: Drs. Rees and Crock- purportedly made question, of more considering ett. “It is reasonable to that assume when by than is revealed bаckground the factual evidence, Exhibit 2-D was received in must, the judgment the in opinion the necessity calling the the doctors writer, considered. whose statements were contained in notations exhibit, part, that the great disappeared be observed to first It is persons of the conclusions are were excused.” to referred is ab- record the notаtions. making In the case of In Estate, re Richards’ would of evidence which solutely devoid opinion court, cited the of the there is persons of such qualifications reveal quoted approval prior from the case they are medical doctors. than other- Clayton Metropolitan Life Insurance is, is experience training and What Co., 823, 120 by the аs revealed Insofar not shown. following: A.L.R. were referred to record, conclusions the' “Before such records can be seeing patient. All admit- ever without drawn ted, in statute, that when Dr. Sund- absence reveals the of- record necessity pathologist, was cross-ex- party confronted on fering must show , by re- amination with statements made admitting the records without him persons autopsy report. person statirig his After or several quiring the testify.” symp- immediate and the made the records cause death who up toms leading report thereto his stated: are not overemphasized that we cannot be incompatible “The obvious answer of fact relative dealing with notations here that, report transfusion.” After treatment, hospi- symptoms, directions performed went on to that the doctor state We are other factual matters. tal staff and autopsy autopsy and other opinions purported dealing with the here tests made unable to determine that was experts. incompatible there was an blood transfu- stipula- by the were not misled Counsel Thus, sion. pathologist was of be re- might tion that the opinion, the same based the 'same every- evidence, believing that ceived in into data, factual Dr. was Crockett only hospi- in the thing might be contained opinion changed further informa- During the competent. was tal record tion. when Carlquist, cross-examination of therefore, Conceding, in view stip in the the notations he wаs confronted with ulation, it that was error for the Crockett, court not by and Dr. made Dr. Rees record permit counsel the appellant to argue obj ground respondent’s ected on the counsel jury. these notations to the conclusion not cross-examination —a that was which, say least, doubtful —the thereby advised hearsay. was He find writer is unable to therеin reversible coun- made that the contention would prejudicial error under the criteria sug could not be con- this evidence sel gested opinion of the court as á jury. pages of tes- Some sidered basis determining question. “It is adduced, timony and there thereafter says necessary,” opinion, survey “to all opportunity for to re- counsel ample present of facts circumstances Rees and disclosed Crockett and call Drs. if, doing, the record and ap the error jury. Whether their their evidence pears be of such a nature that it to the cause of the uremia can be conclusions that it said with assurance concededly no ma patient the died consequence upon terial in its same effect at time the trial be the would they autopsy were when reasonable following the because minds would have ar result, made cannot be regardless were determined. rived at same notations such however, error, interesting, in that it would be harmless connection and the It granting Carlquist, Dr. note of new trial would not be warranted.” bility writer that but inconceivable to the that the verdict would have been dif alleged jury appellant’s per would ferent had error the in this case ‍‌​​​‌​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​‌‌​​​‌‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​‌​​​‌‌‌​​​‌‌​​​​​​‍counsel been Had sketchy have different mitted to arrived at a result. comment entries appellants permitted to ar agree counsel for under been discussion. Since they gue jury, disposition could these matters to the court’s of the other errors as give signed, I dictionary judgment them of words would affirm the below. definitions found, some which the writer been Un HENRIOD, has unable to find Webster’s J., dissenting concurs in the abridged Dictionary, emphasize the and to opinion of McDON Mr. Chief Justice word, “undoubtedly,” no Crockett’s OUGH. testify could not as medi

tation. Counsel testify experts, they as to the

cal nor could

qualifications doctors who made the permitted, how Had been

notations.

ever, entries, for the argue these counsel respondents undoubtedly point out would 318 P.2d 336 forth jury the matters hereinbefore set any argument made counsel meet ENGINEERS, OPERATING LOCAL UNION NO. 3 OF INTERNATIONAL UNION OF evaluating proba appellants. In ENGINEERS, OPERATING for and on be- bility had counsel been of a different result Plaintiffs, members, half of argue, to so an observation permitted enlightening. appellant’s brief All of INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION of Utah, permitted by Ap- Review, its Board State peals Referee, Supervisor, and Claims De- jury room. taken court Com fendants. fact, ap counsel for the menting No. 8444. said, “In this their brief connec pellants in Supreme Court of Utah. may that the could be noted tion it Nov. the contents of Exhibit 2-D examined they reported had agreed because counsel had before time to take

aon verdict exceptions to the instructions.” this, bearing mind that the

view to be decided negli issue was the

ultimate hospital, of the defendant there does

gence appear possi to the writer a remote

Case Details

Case Name: Joseph v. W. H. Groves Latter Day Saints Hospital

Court Name: Utah Supreme Court

Date Published: Nov 26, 1957

Citation: 318 P.2d 330

Docket Number: 8557

Court Abbreviation: Utah