Stowers v Wolodzko

386 Mich. 119, 191 N.W. 2d 355(1971)

I.Procedure
A. Who are the parties?
Plaintiff: Stowers
Defendant: Wolodzko, (Smyk and Ardmore Acres dismissed)
B.Who brought the action?
Stowers, the plaintiff
C.In what court did the case originate?
Trial court in the state of Michigan
D.Who won at the trial court level?
Malpractice: won by Wolodzko
False imprisonment: won by Stowers
Assault and battery: won by Stowers
E.What is the appellate history of the case?
Dr. Wolodzko appealed because there was no evidence of following law
II.Facts
A.What are the relevant facts as recited by this court?
Stowers was a housewife who resided in Livonia, Michigan with her husband
and children.
She and her husband were having marital issues.
December 6, 1963, defendant Wolodzko, appeared at Stowers home and
introduced himself as Dr. Wolodzko.
Dr. Wolodzko had never met either plaintiff or her hysband before he came
to the house
Wolodzko stated he had been called by the husband , who asked him to
examine Stowers.
Plaintiff testified that defendant told her he was there to ask about her
husbands back, and that she had no further conversation with defendant.
Plaintiff testified that defendant never told her that he was a psychiatrist.
Wolodzko stated in deposition that he told the plaintiff he was there to
examine her.
Wolodzko stated that he could not specifically recollect having told the
plaintiff that he was there to examine her.

Plaintiff spoke to defendant at suggestion of Livonia policewoman that

followed a domestic quarrel with plaintiffs husband.
Wolodzko informed Stowers at this time that he was a psychiatrist.
December 30, 1963, defendant and Dr. Anthony Smyk apparently signed a
sworn statement certifying they examined the plaintiff and found her to be
mentally ill.
Certification was filed with Wayne County Probate Court on January 3, 1964.
January 3, 1964, an order was entered by the probate court for temporary
hospitalization of plaintiff until sanity hearing could be held.
Plaintiff was committed to Ardmore Acres, and transferred there on January
4, 1964
Defendant requested permission to treat plaintiff on several occasions, and
she refused.
Plaintiff was placed in security room for six days.
Five of the six days, plaintiff refused to eat, and refused medication at all
times.
Upon arriving at the hospital, plaintiff was refused permission to receive or
place phone calls, or to receive or write letters.
After nine days, plaintiff was allowed to call her family, but no one else.
After refusal of medication, plaintiff was held by three nurses and an
attendant and was forcibly injected with medication.
Plaintiff found unlocked telephone near end of hospitalization and called
relatives in Texas.
Plaintiff was released by court order on January 27, 1964.
Plaintiff filed suit alleging false imprisonment, assault and battery, and
malpractice against Wolodzko, Anthony Smyk, and Ardmore Acres.
Smyk and Ardmore Acres were dismissed before trial.
False imprisonment and assault and battery went to a jury.
Jury returned verdict for plaintiff in the sum of $40,000.

B. Are there any facts that you would like to know by that are not revealed
in the opinion?
Was there a psychological test administered prior to institutionalization?
Were there previous medical records of the plaintiff that expressed mental
instability?
What was the husband getting out of this? Inheritance? Kids?
III.Issues
A. What are the precise issues being litigated, as stated by the court?
False imprisonment, malpractice, assault and battery.

B. Do you agree with the way the court framed those issues?
Yes. I agree with the way false imprisonment and assault and battery were framed,
but I feel that malpractice should have been framed better.

IV. Holding
A. What is the courts precise holding?
False imprisonment was ruled in Stowers favor
Assault and battery was ruled in Stowers favor.
Malpractice was ruled in Wolodzkos favor.
B. What is its rationale for that decision?
False imprisonment: plaintiff was held with no communication allowed.
Assault and battery: it is possible that the plaintiff was held down and given
medication against will.
Malpractice: Wolodzko was cleared of the malpractice suit due to no evidence of it.
V.Implications
A. What does this case mean for healthcare today?
Professionals need to be very careful that they abide by all laws and that they
correctly identify themselves and their position.
B. What were its implications when the decision was announced?
C. How should healthcare administrators prepare to deal with these
implications?
D. What would be different today if the case had been decided differently?