{
  "id": 8526476,
  "name": "SELENA E. BRYANT, Administrator of the Estate of Nettie Gavin Bryant v. SAMPSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bryant v. Sampson Memorial Hospital",
  "decision_date": "1984-12-28",
  "docket_number": "No. 844SC289",
  "first_page": "203",
  "last_page": "204",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "72 N.C. App. 203"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 231,
    "char_count": 3998,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.796,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.4626730923369573e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8056979383740133
    },
    "sha256": "2660d9b8b486e37e0756bdabead371ee09ac63c6546d9274956d1ef7f1a4e3c2",
    "simhash": "1:a3872b65676cd391",
    "word_count": 662
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:36:04.939100+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Hedrick and Hill concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "SELENA E. BRYANT, Administrator of the Estate of Nettie Gavin Bryant v. SAMPSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WEBB, Judge.\nWe hold it was error to exclude the testimony of Dr. Harris and it was error to allow the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. The Court would not allow Dr. Harris to testify as an expert on the proper treatment in Sampson County of the decubitus ulcers of plaintiffs intestate because it felt a pathologist is not an expert in the general practice of medicine. This was error. An expert witness is one who through study or experience or both is better qualified than the jury to form an opinion on a particular subject. See Brandis on N.C. Evidence, 2nd Rev. Ed., \u00a7 133. We believe that a medical doctor of whatever specialty is better able to form an opinion as to medical treatment than the laymen who ordinarily comprise juries. Dr. Harris\u2019 testimony should have been admitted.\nIf Dr. Harris\u2019 testimony had been admitted there would have been evidence that the proper treatment for the deceased\u2019s ulcers would include turning her at regular intervals which was not done and that the ulcers became worse and contributed to her death. This would have been evidence from which a jury could find that the negligence of the defendant\u2019s agents was a proximate cause of injury and death to plaintiffs intestate.\nReversed and remanded.\nJudges Hedrick and Hill concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WEBB, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Bruce H. Robinson, Jr. for plaintiff appellant.",
      "Ward and Smith, P.A. by Dale P. Johnson and Thomas E. Harris for defendant appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "SELENA E. BRYANT, Administrator of the Estate of Nettie Gavin Bryant v. SAMPSON MEMORIAL HOSPITAL\nNo. 844SC289\n(Filed 28 December 1984)\n1. Physicians, Surgeons and Allied Professions 8 15.2\u2014 pathologist\u2019s testimony about appropriate medical treatment \u2014 admissible\nThe court erred by not allowing a pathologist to testify as an expert on the proper treatment in Sampson County of decubitus ulcers. A medical doctor of whatever specialty is better able to form an opinion as to medical treatment than the laymen who ordinarily comprise juries.\n2. Physicians, Surgeons and Allied Professions \u00a7 16.1\u2014 malpractice \u2014decubitus ulcers \u2014 patient not turned with sufficient frequency \u2014 evidence sufficient\nThe court should not have granted defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss where plaintiffs doctor would have testified that the proper treatment for the deceased\u2019s ulcers would include turning her at regular intervals, which was not done, and that the ulcers became worse and contributed to her death.\nAppeal by plaintiff from Llewellyn, Judge. Judgment entered 2 November 1983 in Superior Court, SAMPSON County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 27 November 1984.\nThis is an action in which the plaintiff claims damages for pain and suffering of her intestate prior to death and the wrongful death of her intestate caused by the negligence of the defendant\u2019s agents.\nDr. H. J. Carr testified that he admitted the plaintiffs intestate to the hospital on 7 April 1981 at which time she was suffering from decubitus ulcers. He described the treatment of decubitus ulcers which includes turning the patient every two hours. He testified further that the hospital records did not show that the plaintiffs intestate was turned as often as had been prescribed for her.\nDr. L. S. Harris testified and was tendered by the plaintiff as an expert in \u201cpathology and general medicine.\u201d The Court found he was an expert in pathology but not in \u201cgeneral medicine.\u201d The Court allowed Dr. Harris to testify that one of the causes of the death of the plaintiffs intestate was decubitus ulcers. He was not allowed to testify as to the standard of care in the area for the treatment of decubitus ulcers. If his testimony had been allowed he would have testified that a patient should be turned frequently. He would also have testified if he had been allowed to do so that from his review of the hospital records the proper standard of care was not followed in treating the ulcers of the plaintiffs intestate.\nAt the conclusion of the plaintiffs evidence the Court allowed the defendant\u2019s motion to dismiss. The plaintiff appealed.\nBruce H. Robinson, Jr. for plaintiff appellant.\nWard and Smith, P.A. by Dale P. Johnson and Thomas E. Harris for defendant appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0203-01",
  "first_page_order": 229,
  "last_page_order": 230
}
