Helling v. Carey - 83 Wash. 2d 514, 519 P.2d 981 (1974)

Rule:

Reasonable prudence requires the timely giving of a pressure test for glaucoma to patients under 40 years of age. 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.

Facts:

The patient, who was 32 years of age when she was diagnosed with glaucoma, sued the ophthalmologists for medical malpractice, alleging that she suffered severe and permanent damage to her eyes as the proximate result of the ophthalmologists' negligence in failing timely administer a pressure test for glaucoma. Both the trial and appellate courts ruled in favor of the ophthalmologists.

Issue:

Does compliance with the standard of the profession of ophthalmology, which did not require the giving of a routine pressure test to persons under 40 years of age, exclude the doctors from liability?

Answer:

No

Conclusion:

The court held that under the facts of this case, reasonable prudence required the timely administration of the pressure test to the patient. In failing to do so, the ophthalmologists were negligent, which proximately resulted in the blindness sustained by the patient for which the ophthalmologists were liable.