Is there any element of negligence in the medical malpractice case of a general practitioner?

No evidence was offered as to this element of negligence, and it came into the case, if it all, only after the operation. Mallen v. Boynton, 132 Mass. 443. The evidence does not suggest that such a specialist should have been called in for the operation. On the record, defendant and his assistants were competent to operate, and operated with judgment. A jury might say that at some time in the subsequent treatment defendant should, in the exercise of reasonable care, diligence, and good judgment, have sought, or at least suggested, counsel when he failed to afford plaintiff any substantial relief from the extreme of agony which he suffered. To a man of skill, [232 N.Y. 59]the localized pain might have been a warning of the presence of the broken needle at the sensitive spot. If a general practitioner has reason to doubt, and under the circumstances should doubt, whether he has the competent skill and experience to handle the case himself, the question arises whether good judgment does not require him to advise his patient to consult another more skillful surgeon. But the charge as made was too general. The jury might have inferred from the instructions as given that a specialist would have operated without breaking the needle. Such may indeed be the fact, but plaintiff's case is barren of evidence on this point, and defendant's case strongly suggests the contrary.

It follows that the judgment should be reversed, and a new trial granted, with costs to abide the event.

Judgment reversed, etc.