Helling v.Carey
84 Wash.2d 514,519 P.2d 981 (Wash.1974)
Cooter and Ulen,1st Edition? (1988)
HUNTER,ASSOCIATE JUSTICE.This case arises from a malpractice action instituted by the plaintiff (petitioner),Barbara Helling.
The plaintiff suffers from primary open angle glaucoma.Primary open angle glaucoma is essentially a condition of the eye in which there is an interference in the ease with which the nourishing fluids can flow out of the eye.Such a condition results in pressure gradually rising above the normal level to such an extent that damage is produced to the optic nerve and its fibers with resultant loss in vision....The disease usually has few symptoms and,in the absence of a pressure test,is often undetected until the damage has become extensive and irreversible.
The defendants (respondents),Dr.Thomas F.Carey and Dr.Robert C.Laug-h lin,are partners who practice the medical specialty of ophthalmology.Ophthalmology involves the diagnosis and treatment of defects and diseases of the eye.
The plaintiff first consulted the defendants for myopia,nearsightedness,in 1959.At that time she was fitted with contact lenses.[She consulted the defendants several times over the next nine years.] Until the October 1968 consultation,the defendants considered the plaintiff’s visual problems to be related solely to complications associated with contact lenses.On that occasion,the defendant,Dr.Carey,tested the plaintiff’s eye pressure and field of vision for the first time.This test indicated that the plaintiff had glaucoma.The plaintiff ...was then 32 years of age.
Thereafter,in August of 1969,after consulting other physicians,the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendants alleging,among other things,that she sustained severe and permanent damage to her eyes as a proximate result of the defendants’ negligence.During trial,the testimony of the medical experts for both the plaintiff and the defendants established that the standards of the profession for that specialty in the same or similar circumstances do not require routine pressure tests for glaucoma upon patients under 40 years of age.The reason the pressure test for glaucoma is not given as a regular practice to patients under the age of 40 is that the disease rarely occurs in this age group.Testimony indicated,however,that the standards of the profession do require pressure tests if the patient’s complaints and symptoms reveal to the physician that glaucoma should be suspected.(https://www.daowen.com)
The trial court entered judgment for the defendants following a defense ver-dict.The plaintiff thereupon appealed to the Court of Appeals,which affirmed the judgment of the trial court....
We find this to be a unique case....The issue is whether the defendants’ compliance with the standard of the profession of ophthalmology,which does not require the giving of a routine pressure test to persons under 40 years of age,should insulate them from liability under the facts in this case where the plaintiff has lost a substantial amount of her vision due to the failure of the defendants to timely give the pressure test to the plaintiff.
The incidence of glaucoma in one out of 25,000 persons under the age of 40 may appear quite minimal.However,that one person,the plaintiff in this instance,is entitled to the same protection as afforded persons over 40,essential for timely detection of the evidence of glaucoma where it can be arrested to avoid the grave and devastating result of this disease.The test is a simple pressure test,relatively inexpensive.There is no judgment factor involved,and there is no doubt that by giving the test the evidence of glaucoma can be detected.The giving of the test is harmless if the physical condition of the eye permits.The testimony indicates that although the condition of the plaintiff’s eyes might have at times prevented the defendants from administering the pressure test,there is an absence of evidence in the record that the test could not have been timely given....
Under the facts of this case reasonable prudence required the timely giving of the pressure test to this plaintiff.The precaution of giving this test to detect the incidence of glaucoma to patients under 40 years of age is so imperative that irrespective of its disregard by the standards of the ophthalmology profession,it is the duty of the courts to say what is required to protect patients under 40 from the damaging results of glaucoma.
We therefore hold,as a matter of law,that the reasonable standard that should have been followed under the undisputed facts of this case was the timely giving of this simple,harmless pressure test to this plaintiff and that,in failing to do so,the defendants were negligent,which proximately resulted in the blindness sustained by the plaintiff for which the defendants are liable....
The judgment of the trial court and the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed,and the case is remanded for a new trial on the issue of damages only.