concurring in part and dissenting in part: I concur in die judgment of this court that it was error for the trial court to direct a verdict in favor of the hospital. I respectfully .dissent as to that portion of the opinion upholding the action of the trial court in directing a verdict in favor of the defendant, Dr. G. Rex Stone. I disagree with the majority in their conclusion that there was not sufficient evidence of negligence on the part of Dr. Stone to justify submission of the case to the jury. At the trial the plaintiff presented the testimony of Dr. Donald E. Strand of Clay Center who testified that one of the greatest dangers following a gallbladder *53operation and removal of a T-tube is biliary peritonitis which results from bile leaking into the peritoneal cavity. The evidence is undisputed that complications are relatively common and require surveillance of the patient after a T-tube is removed. Dr. Strand testified on direct examination that it is his practice after removal of a T-tube following gallbladder surgery for him to check his patient within four or five hours after the T-tube is removed. When asked whether or not this would be good medical practice, he answered that all he could say was that this is what they were taught at the KU Medical School and at General Hospital. On redirect examination Dr. Strand again testified that after the T-tube is pulled a patient should be checked at least within a period of four or five hours thereafter. He stated that he himself would feel uncomfortable if he did not check his patient within the four or five hour period. He conceded that such an examination might be conducted by a good surgical nurse. There was no evidence that a good surgical nurse ever examined Mr. Karrigan. Taken as a whole Dr. Strand’s testimony was sufficient to raise a jury question as to whether Dr. Stone was negligent in waiting to check the condition of his patient until the lapse of ten and one-half hours after the T-tube was removed.
The evidence is undisputed that shortly after the T-tube was removed by Dr. Stone, Mr. Karrigan suffered intense pain and requested that he be seen by Dr. Stone. This information was communicated to the nurse at 11:10 a. m. The nurse telephoned Dr. Stone at his office but was unable to co.ntact Dr. Stone personally. Dr. Stone’s partner prescribed demerol for pain. In my judgment a jury question was presented as to whether or not Dr. Stone had a duty to make further inquiry into Mr. Karrigan’s condition rather than waiting ten and one-half hours while Mr. Karrigan’s condition deteriorated. I question whether or not the blame for the failure to treat Mr. Karrigan during the ten and one-half hour period should be placed solely upon the nurses at the hospital. Dr. Stone knew the complications commonly resulting from the removal of a T-tube. He was a graduate of Kansas University Medical School where according to Dr. Strand he was taught that it was good practice for a physician to check upon the patient’s condition within four or five horns after a T-tube is removed. Dr. Stone’s office personnel and partner were informed at 11:10 in the morning that his patient was in pain and that the nurse was trying to get in touch with him. When all of these factors are added together, in my judgment a *54jury should have been permitted to determine whether or not Dr. Stone was negligent in delaying ten and one-half hours in getting around to checking on the condition of his patient.
On the issue of a causal connection between delay in treatment and increased injury and damages to Mr. Karrigan, the evidence was undisputed that when postoperative complications do occur, they require specific measures to minimize their effects on the patient and to eliminate them as soon as possible. The earlier a correct diagnosis is established and suitable steps are taken, the more effective is the treatment and the better the prognosis. The evidence here is that following the removal of the T-tube Mr. Karrigan suffered extreme pain, became apprehensive and nauseated, vomited blood, was unable to void, and insisted upon being catheterized. He asked to see a doctor and in desperation requested the presence of a priest. When Dr. Stone finally appeared ten and one-half hours later he found Mr. Karrigan in a condition which Dr. Stone described as “seriously ill” or “critical.” I do not believe that under the circumstances it could be held as a matter of law that Mr. Karrigan suffered no injury or damages as a result of the long delay in his treatment.
In my judgment reasonable minds could differ on the issue of Dr. Stone’s negligence and whether or not the long delay in treatment resulted in additional injury to the patient. These issues should have been submitted to the jury. I would hold that the trial court was in error in determining them as a matter of law.
Fatzer, C. J., joins in the foregoing concurrence and dissent.