This Article  • References  • Full text PDF  • Reply to article  • Send to a friend  • Save in My Folder  • Save to citation manager  • Permissions  Citing Articles  • Citing articles on HighWire  • Contact me when this article is cited  Related Content  • Similar articles in this journal  Social Bookmarking   What's this?

LLOYD MILLS, M.D.; ETTA C. JEANCON, M.D.

Arch Ophthal. 1930;4(2):194-204.

	Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text PDF and any section headings.

Two recent legal decisions relative to unrecognized magnetic intraocular foreign bodies clearly define the degree to which improvement in medical knowledge and skill creates a corresponding responsibility and legal liability.

In the case of Kosal v. Boyce, 201 N. W. 757, decided by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin in 1925,¹ the plaintiff-patient was struck in the eye by part of a steel spring. The defendant-physician, who specialized in diseases of the eye, ear, nose and throat, treated the injury. According to the record, this physician examined the eye by the use of the ophthalmoscope, direct illumination and oblique focal rays, but failed to discover any foreign body in the eye. Several months later another physician, with the aid of roentgenograms, discovered a piece of steel in the eye. The plaintiff brought suit, and the lower court awarded him damages to the extent of $2,000. The Supreme Court of . . . [Full Text PDF of this Article]

Author Affiliations
LOS ANGELES

Footnotes
Submitted for publication, April 18, 1930.

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter     What's this?