Cohran v. Harper

Court of Appeals of Georgia

Cohran v. Harper

154 S.E.2d 461, 115 Ga. App. 277, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1081

CourtCourt of Appeals of Georgia

DecidedFebruary 7, 1967

Docket42405

StatusPublished

This text of 154 S.E.2d 461 (Cohran v. Harper) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Georgia primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Cohran v. Harper, 154 S.E.2d 461, 115 Ga. App. 277, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1081 (Ga. Ct. App. 1967).

Pincite

Opinion

Pannell, Judge.

Plaintiff sued the defendant, a physician, charging him with malpractice arising out of an alleged “staph” infection she received on a hypodermic needle used by the physician’s nurse in giving plaintiff an injection of penicillin at the physician’s direction and in his presence, which injection resulted in osteomyelitis. The grounds of negligence were “(a) the defendant knowing that your plaintiff was allergic to penicillin failed to make an allergy test; (b) that the defendant failed to properly sterilize the hypodermic needle which was used to inject in and administered to your plaintiff a certain dose of penicillin.” On motion for summary judgment the uncontradicted evidence of the plaintiff herself showed she suffered no allergic reactions to the penicillin. The evidence also showed without dispute that a prepackaged sterilized needle and syringe were used which was in accordance with proper and accepted medical practice (Mull v. Emory Univ., 114 Ga. App. 63 (4) (150 SE2d 276)) and that the nurse’s hands never touched the needle. Assuming, but not deciding, that there was evidence that the needle was contaminated and the plaintiff’s ailment was *278 caused thereby, there is no evidence that either the physician or his nurse or anyone in his office knew or by the exercise of ordinary care could have discovered that the prepackaged needle and syringe were so contaminated; or that, if the needle and syringe were contaminated, either the physician, his nurse, or someone in his employ through negligence or otherwise caused the contamination. The trial judge upon failure of the proof to make an issue as to either ground of negligence or that such negligence caused the injury and damage to the plaintiff, did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendant, there being no material issue arising out of the proof to be submitted to a jury. Ga. L. 1959, p. 234, et seq. (Code Ann. '§ 110-1201, et seq.).

Felton, C. J., and Frankum, P. J., concur. Argued November 8, 1966 Decided February 7, 1967 Rehearing denied February 21, 1967 Larry Cohran, for appellant. Troutman, Sams, Schroder & Lockerman, T. M. Smith, Jr., Robert L. Pennington, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Pannell, Judge.

Plaintiff sued the defendant, a physician, charging him with malpractice arising out of an alleged “staph” infection she received on a hypodermic needle used by the physician’s nurse in giving plaintiff an injection of penicillin at the physician’s direction and in his presence, which injection resulted in osteomyelitis. The grounds of negligence were “(a) the defendant knowing that your plaintiff was allergic to penicillin failed to make an allergy test; (b) that the defendant failed to properly sterilize the hypodermic needle which was used to inject in and administered to your plaintiff a certain dose of penicillin.” On motion for summary judgment the uncontradicted evidence of the plaintiff herself showed she suffered no allergic reactions to the penicillin. The evidence also showed without dispute that a prepackaged sterilized needle and syringe were used which was in accordance with proper and accepted medical practice (Mull v. Emory Univ., 114 Ga. App. 63 (4) (150 SE2d 276)) and that the nurse’s hands never touched the needle. Assuming, but not deciding, that there was evidence that the needle was contaminated and the plaintiff’s ailment was *278 caused thereby, there is no evidence that either the physician or his nurse or anyone in his office knew or by the exercise of ordinary care could have discovered that the prepackaged needle and syringe were so contaminated; or that, if the needle and syringe were contaminated, either the physician, his nurse, or someone in his employ through negligence or otherwise caused the contamination. The trial judge upon failure of the proof to make an issue as to either ground of negligence or that such negligence caused the injury and damage to the plaintiff, did not err in granting summary judgment for the defendant, there being no material issue arising out of the proof to be submitted to a jury. Ga. L. 1959, p. 234, et seq. (Code Ann. '§ 110-1201, et seq.).

Felton, C. J., and Frankum, P. J., concur. Argued November 8, 1966 Decided February 7, 1967 Rehearing denied February 21, 1967 Larry Cohran, for appellant. Troutman, Sams, Schroder & Lockerman, T. M. Smith, Jr., Robert L. Pennington, for appellee.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

154 S.E.2d 461, 115 Ga. App. 277, 1967 Ga. App. LEXIS 1081, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/cohran-v-harper-gactapp-1967.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack