{
  "id": 5201213,
  "name": "Louis Matthei v. Ernest Wooley",
  "name_abbreviation": "Matthei v. Wooley",
  "decision_date": "1897-04-15",
  "docket_number": "",
  "first_page": "654",
  "last_page": "655",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "69 Ill. App. 654"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.",
    "id": 8837,
    "name": "Illinois Appellate Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 29,
    "name_long": "Illinois",
    "name": "Ill."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "40 Ill. 209",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ill.",
      "case_ids": [
        425868
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ill/40/0209-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 184,
    "char_count": 2091,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.508,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.578299234818898e-08,
      "percentile": 0.40282599487460463
    },
    "sha256": "3c157f05cd3c447670e6f2f291ba26c9b23ef5f93262125ca3a1c77b23e4a23c",
    "simhash": "1:d34359718c0181f1",
    "word_count": 363
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:55:23.961114+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Louis Matthei v. Ernest Wooley."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Mr. Justice Gary\ndelivered the opinion of the Court.\nThere was a conflict of evidence on the trial of this case; abundance on either side to win on.\nThe jury settled that conflict in favor of the appellee, and any review of it would serve only to prove that the conclusion of the jury can not be set aside.\nThe appellee sued the appellant for the ill consequences to the appellee by the malpractice of the appellant as a physician and surgeon.\nThe appellant is a druggist. According to the evidence on the part of the appellee, he thought the appellant was also a doctor, and went to him with a hurt finger, which the appellant treated wrongly for ten days, the result of which was inability for a long time to work, and finally amputation of the finger.\nIf the appellant did in fact \u201c treat, operate on, or prescribe for any physical ailment of\u201d the appellee, the statute regards him as \u201c practicing medicine,\u201d within the meaning of Gh. 91, R. S.\nIf by so doing he held himself out to the appellee as a doctor, and the appellee believed the appellant to be a doctor, then he is chargeable in that character. McNevins v. Lowe, 40 Ill. 209.\nThe only question argued is the sufficiency of the evidence, and we can only affirm the judgment, which is done.\nMr. Justice Waterman dissents.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Mr. Justice Gary"
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Runyan & RunyanJ attorneys for appellant.",
      "Frank W. Blair, attorney for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Louis Matthei v. Ernest Wooley.\n1. Medical Practice\u2014Who are Physicians.\u2014A person who treats, operates on, or prescribes for any physical ailment must be regarded as practicing medicine, within the meaning of chapter 91, R; S., entitled \u201c Medicine and Surgery.\u201d\n2. Same\u2014 Persons Holding Themselves out as Doctors.\u2014If by treating, operating on, or prescribing for physical ailments, a person holds himself out as a doctor to persons employing him, and they believe him to be a doctor, he will be chargeable as such.\nAction, for medical malpractice. Appeal from the Superior Court of Cook County; the Hon. Nathaniel C. Sears, Judge, presiding.\nHeard in this court at the March term, 1897.\nAffirmed.\nOpinion filed April 15, 1897.\nRunyan & RunyanJ attorneys for appellant.\nFrank W. Blair, attorney for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0654-01",
  "first_page_order": 652,
  "last_page_order": 653
}
