Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 35,900 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 984 casebooks ► [ Ссылка ]
Hicks v. United States | 368 F.2d 626 (4th Cir. 1966)
We’re all familiar with the clearly-erroneous standard of review that requires a reviewing court in appellate matters to reverse a determination only if there’s a firm and concrete conviction that an error’s been committed. In the tragic nineteen sixty-six case of Hicks versus United States, we examine this highly deferential standard of review in the context of a medical-malpractice suit.
Twenty-five-year-old Carol Greitens was married to a naval officer. One day, in the wee hours of the morning, she had intense abdominal pain and repeated vomiting. Greiten’s husband took her to the federal hospital. Shortly after her intake, the doctor saw her and inquired about her symptoms, examined her abdomen, and used a stethoscope to listen to her bowels. After spending about ten minutes with her, the doctor told Greitens she had a stomach bug and sent her home with some medicine to relieve the pain. He never evaluated her for an intestinal obstruction, which shared the symptoms experienced by Greitens. Rather, he recorded his diagnosis in her chart as gastroenteritis and told her to return in eight hours.
Several hours later at home, she vomited again twice. After falling to the floor unconscious, she was taken back to the hospital and pronounced dead after attempts to revive her failed. The autopsy revealed her cause of death to be a massive obstruction in the small intestine.
The administrator of Greiten’s estate, Harry Hicks, sued the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act in district court, contending that the doctor’s negligent misdiagnosis caused Greiten’s death. At trial, the government’s expert witness made a statement concluding that the doctor exercised the requisite duty of care, although his testimony revealed that the doctor didn’t. Hicks’s experts, however, unequivocally testified that the doctor’s care fell below the requisite standard of care. The court, concluding that the doctor’s misdiagnosis represented an error in judgment rather than negligence, dismissed the matter. Hicks appealed to the Fourth Circuit.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: [ Ссылка ]
The Quimbee App features over 16,300 case briefs keyed to 223 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► [ Ссылка ]
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: [ Ссылка ]
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here: Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► [ Ссылка ]
Quimbee Case Brief App ► [ Ссылка ]
Facebook ► [ Ссылка ]
Twitter ► [ Ссылка ]
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
![](https://s2.save4k.ru/pic/Ia-Xp-nyAGo/maxresdefault.jpg)