Case 11: Stohlman v Davis, 117 Neb.

178, 220 Nw 247 1928

Facts
• In Stohlman v. B.B. Davis (1928), the case involved abandonment of patient by
physician in a serious condition of disease without reason or sufficient notice.
• Plaintiff
o Leroy Stohlman
o 18 years old
o Farm home near Louisville, Nebraska
o Sufferer of osteomyelitis
o Seat of trouble: right femur, a short distance above the knee
• Defendant
o Dr. B.B. Davis
o Surgeon at Clarkson hospital
• Progression
o November 10, 1923: onset of disease. Stohlman was taken to Clarkson
hospital by his father and was attended by Dr. B.B. Davis
o November 12, 1923: first operation
o February 4, 1924: second operation. Dr. B.B. Davis removed infected
femur about 4inches in length and one inch in width, stating he had taken
out all the bone he dared without incurring the danger of a fracture or a
separation of femur. No cast, splint or support was placed until March 8,
1924
o February 20, 1924: Dr. B.B. Davis (attending physician) became ill and
went for treatment in another state (Rochester Minnesota) to consult a
specialist and remained there until February 26, 1924.
o February 26, 1924: after his return to Omaha, he called Stohlman at the
hospital. There had been an X-ray plate made which was examined by him,
and a consultation was also had with Dr. Herbert Davis in whose charge
Stohlman had been placed by Dr. B.B. Davis.
o The conclusion of the consultation was that osteomyelitis developed in the
right foot, there was an infection, but that as drainage was good and
temperature was normal, no immediate operation was necessary.
o March 7, 1924: The patient developed complication as a result of surgery.
o Stohlman was taken over wholly without his own consent or the consent of
his father by Dr. Herbert Davis and without knowledge or notice that Dr. B.B.
 Davis, by reason of enforced absence had practically abandoned the case.
And was not advised until about March 7,1924.
o March 8, 1924: Dr. Herbert Davis, assisted Dr. Lord, made an operation of
plaintiff’s foot, saw a developed osteomyelitis originally seated in the
metatarsal bone, had extended to other bones in the foot. Dr. Lord also
discovered a separation of the femur.
Issues

1. Whether the defendant was negligent in omitting to apply to the leg a cast, split or
other support to prevent a separation of the femur, which the disease disintegrated,
weakened, and after a portion thereof had been removed by operation.
2. Whether the defendant was negligent in failing to diagnose the disease of the foot
as osteomyelitis, and to provide proper drainage therefor on or prior to March 8,
1924.
3. Whether the defendant was negligent in abandoning plaintiff at a critical period of
plaintiff’s illness without proper notification of his necessary absence.

Ruling

To prove abandonment, the patient must present following four essentials, and all criteria were met:
1. An established physician-patient relationship;
2. The termination or negligence by the physician;
3. Absence of adequate notice to allow the patient to choose another physician; and
4. The patient must have been injured as a result (Showalter, 2008).