Heintz v. Cooper

California Supreme Court Dec 31, 1896 No. S. F. No. 479Published

Before: Haynes

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the trial court's findings were sufficient to support the judgment and that the evidence supported the award for medical services, despite the defendant's claims of negligence and improper valuation.

Issues

Whether findings of fact made by reference to the pleadings are sufficient to support a judgment.
Whether a failure to make a finding on an immaterial issue constitutes reversible error.
Whether the evidence supported the court's determination of the reasonable value of professional medical services.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The finding here in question is clear and certain, and, though the mode “is not to be commended,” justice must not be sacrificed to form.”

“A finding either way upon the question of defendant’s negligence could not affect the result, and in such case the fact becomes immaterial, and no finding is required.”

Synopsis

Trial.—A Finding, “That the Matters and Facts Alleged in defendant’s special defense and cross-complaint on file herein, except the allegations of plaintiff’s employment, and agreements under such employment, are untrue in substance and in fact,” supports a judgment for plaintiff, where the answer and cross-complaint both allege that defendant employed plaintiff as a physician and surgeon, for a reward, and that plaintiff undertook the service, whereby defendant was damaged by plaintiff’s negligence and ineompeteney.

Physician.—Where Plaintiff Sues for Services as Physician, and defendant, by a cross-complaint, seeks damages for alleged negligent treatment, and plaintiff, in answer, alleges that defendant’s suffering was aggravated by his own negligence and failure to follow plaintiff’s directions, a finding that all the facts alleged in the cross-complaint, except that of plaintiff’s employment, “are untrue,” renders the issue of defendant’s negligence immaterial, and a finding as to it is not required.

Physician-—Compensation.—In Determining What is a Reasonable compensation for surgical and medical services in a given ease, the skill and learning of the operator and the character and circumstances of the subject to which he devotes his services must be considered, and the rule that compensation is determined by “the usual price at the time and place of performance” does not necessarily apply.

Evidence.—Possible Error in the Exclusion of Evidence, on an issue which could not have affected the judgment, is harmless.

Physician—Malpractice.—Before a Witness can Testify on the issue of a physician’s neglect and unskillful practice, his competency must be shown.

HAYNES, C. This action is prosecuted to recover for services rendered by the plaintiff as a physician and surgeon. The complaint contains two counts—the first upon an account stated, amounting to $1,200, and admitting a payment thereon of $500; and the second count alleged said services to be reasonably worth $2,500, the whole of which remained unpaid except the sum of $500. The defendant denied all the allegations of the complaint, and for a second defense alleged negligence, incompeteney and unskillfulness on the part of the plaintiff, whereby he was made sick, and kept from attending to his business, for more than six months, and compelled to pay $1,000 for nursing and medical attendance, and “.is permanently a cripple, to his damage in the sum of $3,000.” ’The same allegations are stated in a cross-complaint, in which defendant seeks to recover damages in the sum of $4,000, and to which cross-complaint the plaintiff filed an answer. The cause was tried by the court without a jury. The findings were against the plaintiff upon the first cause of action. Upon the second cause of action the court found the reasonable value of plaintiff’s services to have been $750, of which sum $500 had been paid. As to the special defense and counterclaim pleaded by the defendant, the court found against him. A judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $250 was entered, and defendant appeals therefrom, and from an order denying a new trial.

1. It is contended that the findings do not support the judgment. This contention is based upon the fourth finding, which is as follows: “That the matters and facts alleged in the defendant’s special defense and cross-complaint, on file herein, except the allegations of plaintiff’s employment and agreements under such employment, are untrue in substance and in fact, and offered only as a bare pretense, without any justification or excuse whatever.” The answer and cross-complaint both alleged that defendant employed the plaintiff as a physician and surgeon, for a reward, to set [566]his leg, and dress and heal the same, and that plaintiff undertook to set and dress said leg for said defendant, and then proceeds to allege negligence, want of skill, etc., and damages resulting therefrom. Findings by reference to the pleadings, or parts thereof, have been frequently criticised by this court, and where such findings involve uncertainty as to what facts are found they are uniformly held insufficient; but where “they do show what facts are found, and there is no uncertainty about them,” they are sustained: Davis v. Drew, 58 Cal. 157. The finding here in question is clear and certain, and, though the mode “is not to be commended,” justice must not be sacrificed to form.

Heintz v. Cooper

AI Brief

Synopsis

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief