OCR Text |
Show THE SUIT FOR MALPRACTICE. From the reports of the Third District Court proceedings, as published in the Salt Lake papers, we learn that the suit of Peter Neilsen vs. O. C. Ormsby has been dismissed. According to statements made, this action was taken because the plaintiff was not of age when the suit was planned? and therefore could not legally prosecute for damages. The merits of the case have thus never been reached nor made public, but from the best information we can obtain the facts are as follows: In 1878, young Neilsen sustained a very severe injury to his left leg while logging in Logan canyon. He was placed under Doctor Ormsby's care, and after an examination it was found that the femur had suffered an oblique comminuted fracture in other words that the thigh bone had been broken in two places. Finally the boy was discharged from the surgeon's care; and, although the injured limb was not as good as the other, the result was deemed very fortunate by all who had known of the case. The C. O. M., & B. Company for which Neilsen had been working, paid the expenses; and everything was supposed to be satisfactory. But in the latter part of 1879, a notice of the suit appeared in the newspapers; and subsequently formal service of the demand for $3,000 was made on the defendant. <br><br> From that time the cause has had the usual experience of legal actions, until its dismissal. It was rumored at one time that a compromise had been effected; and in order to learn the truth, Doctor Ormsby was interviewed. In reply to a question on the subject, he answered, "No, and the case never will be compromised by me, If I did not do my duty, I will abide the law; and if, on the contrary, my treatment was correct, by legal procedure must my character be vindicated and my reputation sustained." <br><br> We deemed it advisable not to comment on this affair until some decision should be rendered by the court; and now that this is done, we feel at liberty to speak without prejudice, of the matter. Whether the suit is forever ended or will be again entered is not now known; and therefore we refrain from relating the particulars. But there is such a widespread interest on the subject that some remarks are necessary. We are not acting as champion for anybody in this matter, but must state that our sympathies are with doctor Ormsby. From his standing as a citizen and his rank as a medical man, it is only fair to presume that he did everything possible for his patient; while the manner in which the suit was brought against him was questionable, to say the least; and it is probably that the ill-feeling of [unreadable line] as anything else to do with the case. The evidence of disinterested persons is more than sufficient to justify us in this belief. But a grave question, which will not be settled with this suit, is presented for public consideration. What recourse has a professional who is unjustly prosecuted for malpractice? In nine cases out of ten, the plaintiff is impecunious and has therefore nothing to lose in bringing the prosecution. But the defendant must spend money for legal counsel and inevitable costs, while his professional reputation is put in frightful jeopardy; and even if the suit is dismissed, he is a deeply injured man. Will our law makers do anything to rectify this? |