malpractice action

Jerry Canterbury, a nineteen-year-old clerk-typist with the Federal Bureau of Investigation, began suffering severe back pain in December 1958. After medications from two general practitioners failed to relieve the pain between his shoulder blades, he consulted neurosurgeon Dr. William T. Spence. Dr. Spence examined Canterbury and recommended a myelogram at the Washington Hospital Center following inconclusive x-rays. Canterbury was admitted to the hospital on February 4, 1959. The myelogram disclosed a filling defect near the fourth thoracic vertebra, prompting Dr. Spence to advise a laminectomy for a suspected ruptured disc. Canterbury notified Dr. Spence of his mother's limited means in West Virginia. Dr. Spence telephoned her to explain the procedure as no more serious than any other operation. Mrs. Canterbury arrived after the surgery and signed a consent form authorizing the laminectomy and any necessary additional procedures. Dr. Spence performed the laminectomy on February 11, 1959. He discovered a swollen non-pulsating spinal cord, dilated veins, and absent epidural fat. The following day Canterbury fell from his hospital bed while voiding unattended after orders were changed to permit out-of-bed use. Paralysis from the waist down developed hours later, leading to an immediate second operation to relieve pressure on the spinal cord. Canterbury's condition improved modestly after the second surgery but he required additional procedures for bladder stones and ongoing urologic care. By the time of trial he walked with crutches, experienced bowel paralysis and urinary incontinence, and faced employment challenges due to his need for proximity to bathroom facilities. He filed his complaint on March 7, 1963, asserting claims against Dr. Spence for negligent surgery and failure to warn of paralysis risk and against the hospital for negligent post-operative monitoring. The district court directed verdicts for both defendants at the close of Canterbury's evidence in April 1968. Canterbury appealed the resulting judgment to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which reinstated the appeal after initially dismissing it for lack of finality and proceeded to review the directed verdicts.

Mrs. Scott’s physician advised her she had several fibroid tumors on her uterus and referred her to defendant surgeon. Defendant admitted her to the hospital where she signed a routine consent form prior to defendant’s performing a hysterectomy. After surgery, Mrs. Scott experienced problems with incontinence. She visited another physician who discovered she had a vesico-vaginal fistula which permitted urine to leak from her bladder into the vagina. This physician referred her to an urologist who, after three surgeries, succeeded in correcting her problems. Mrs. Scott, joined by her husband, filed the present action alleging medical malpractice, claiming defendant failed to advise her of the risks involved or of available alternatives to surgery. She further maintained had she been properly informed she would have refused the surgery. The case was submitted to the jury with instructions to which plaintiffs objected. The jury found for defendant and plaintiffs appeal. In plaintiffs’ amended appeal brief it is suggested that the trial court erred in failing to instruct the jury on the issue of defendant’s abandonment of plaintiff post surgery. Although plaintiffs did offer two requested instructions on this issue, not given, they did not set them out in their brief as required by the rules of this Court, 12 O.S. 1971, Ch. 15, App. 1, Rule 15.

Georgia O'Keeffe, a renowned artist, had three paintings stolen from An American Place gallery in New York in March 1946. The gallery was operated by her husband Alfred Stieglitz. The paintings subject to this action are "Seaweed" and "Cliffs," with a third painting "Fragments" also missing. O'Keeffe did not report the theft to the police or advertise the loss, though she discussed it with associates. Stieglitz died in the summer of 1946. In 1947 O'Keeffe retained Doris Bry to help settle the estate. Bry urged reporting the loss, but O'Keeffe declined. In 1972, O'Keeffe authorized Bry to report the theft to the Art Dealers Association of America, Inc., which maintains a registry of stolen paintings. In September 1975, O'Keeffe learned that the paintings were in the Andrew Crispo Gallery in New York on consignment from Bernard Danenberg Galleries. On February 11, 1976, O'Keeffe discovered that Ulrich A. Frank had sold the paintings to Barry Snyder for $35,000. She demanded their return, but Snyder refused. O'Keeffe filed her complaint for replevin in March 1976 against Snyder, who impleaded Frank as a third-party defendant. The trial court granted summary judgment to Snyder on the ground that the action was barred by the six-year statute of limitations. The Appellate Division reversed and entered judgment for O'Keeffe. The Supreme Court of New Jersey granted certification to consider the issues. Frank traces his possession of the paintings to his father, Dr. Frank, who died in 1968, claiming to have seen them in his father's apartment as early as 1941-1943. Snyder purchased the paintings from Frank in 1975. There are factual disputes regarding the circumstances of the paintings' disappearance and acquisition.