Mrs. Clara H. Hall v. United States

Fifth Circuit

Mrs. Clara H. Hall v. United States

234 F.2d 811, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3780

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

DecidedJune 22, 1956

Docket15975

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 234 F.2d 811 (Mrs. Clara H. Hall v. United States) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mrs. Clara H. Hall v. United States, 234 F.2d 811, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3780 (5th Cir. 1956).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, wife of an Army sergeant, sought damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346 (b), 1402(b), 2401, 2671 et seq., for paralysis which followed a spinal anesthetic which she alleged was negligently given to her while a patient in a navy hospital for the purpose of easing the pains of childbirth. The trial before the court resulted in a finding that there was no negligence and a judgment was entered for the United States.

The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment adverse to her, contending that she was entitled to but was denied the benefits of the doctrine of res ipsa lo-quitur, that it was actionable negligence not to warn her of the problems in the use of a spinal anesthetic, that the express consent of plaintiff to the giving of the anesthetic should have been but was not procured, that an anesthesiologist who was on duty at the hospital should have been but was not consulted, and that the sterilizing solution in which the ampule of the anesthetic was stored prior to use should have been dyed, so that any seepage of the solution into the ampule and the consequent contamination of the anesthetic would have been readily apparent.

All of the questions presented were carefully considered by Judge Dawkins, before whom the case was tried, and are discussed by him in a well and carefully written opinion. Hall v. United States, D.C., 136 F.Supp. 187. The conclusions which he has reached and the principles which he has pronounced are sound and require no elaboration by us.

At the outset we were given some concern by Judge Dawkins’ comment that the practice of artificially coloring the storage solution in which the anesthetic was kept is safer procedure. However, an examination of the record confirms Judge Dawkins’ finding that the anesthetic would not have been found as it was, in dry and loose flakes, and the glucose solvent, packaged in another ampule, would not have been clear and colorless, if there had been any seepage of the storage solution into the ampules. Thus, as Judge Dawkins points out, any conclusion that the anesthetic was contaminated by the storage solution would be highly speculative.

The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

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

PER CURIAM.

The plaintiff, wife of an Army sergeant, sought damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C.A. §§ 1346 (b), 1402(b), 2401, 2671 et seq., for paralysis which followed a spinal anesthetic which she alleged was negligently given to her while a patient in a navy hospital for the purpose of easing the pains of childbirth. The trial before the court resulted in a finding that there was no negligence and a judgment was entered for the United States.

The plaintiff has appealed from the judgment adverse to her, contending that she was entitled to but was denied the benefits of the doctrine of res ipsa lo-quitur, that it was actionable negligence not to warn her of the problems in the use of a spinal anesthetic, that the express consent of plaintiff to the giving of the anesthetic should have been but was not procured, that an anesthesiologist who was on duty at the hospital should have been but was not consulted, and that the sterilizing solution in which the ampule of the anesthetic was stored prior to use should have been dyed, so that any seepage of the solution into the ampule and the consequent contamination of the anesthetic would have been readily apparent.

All of the questions presented were carefully considered by Judge Dawkins, before whom the case was tried, and are discussed by him in a well and carefully written opinion. Hall v. United States, D.C., 136 F.Supp. 187. The conclusions which he has reached and the principles which he has pronounced are sound and require no elaboration by us.

At the outset we were given some concern by Judge Dawkins’ comment that the practice of artificially coloring the storage solution in which the anesthetic was kept is safer procedure. However, an examination of the record confirms Judge Dawkins’ finding that the anesthetic would not have been found as it was, in dry and loose flakes, and the glucose solvent, packaged in another ampule, would not have been clear and colorless, if there had been any seepage of the storage solution into the ampules. Thus, as Judge Dawkins points out, any conclusion that the anesthetic was contaminated by the storage solution would be highly speculative.

The judgment of the district court is

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

234 F.2d 811, 1956 U.S. App. LEXIS 3780, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mrs-clara-h-hall-v-united-states-ca5-1956.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack