Gian-Cursio v. State
180 So. 2d 396 (1965)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A healthcare practitioner, regardless of their specific school of practice or good faith intentions, may be held criminally liable for manslaughter due to culpable negligence if they treat a patient for a known, life-threatening disease with methods that demonstrate a gross lack of competency or gross ignorance of established and effective medical remedies, and this treatment proximately causes the patient's death.
Facts:
- In 1951, Roger Mozian was diagnosed with tuberculosis, which remained dormant for approximately ten years under the care of a medical doctor.
- In January 1962, Mozian's doctor, Dr. Matis, determined the tuberculosis had become active and recommended hospitalization and drug treatment.
- Mozian refused the recommended medical treatment and instead sought care from Dr. Gian-Cursio, a licensed chiropractic physician in New York who practiced 'Natural Hygiene.'
- Dr. Gian-Cursio was aware of Mozian's active tuberculosis diagnosis and began treating him with a vegetarian diet and periods of fasting, without any medication.
- Dr. Gian-Cursio then sent Mozian to Florida for continued treatment at a facility operated by Dr. Epstein, a licensed Florida chiropractic physician, who continued the drugless diet and fasting regimen under Dr. Gian-Cursio's direction.
- Mozian's health deteriorated, and he was eventually hospitalized in May 1963, where he received conventional medical treatment for tuberculosis.
- A few days after being hospitalized, on May 16, 1963, Roger Mozian died from pulmonary tuberculosis.
- Expert testimony established that the treatment provided by the appellants was not an approved method for active tuberculosis and that conventional medical treatment could have arrested or controlled the disease.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Florida filed an information against Christopher Gian-Cursio and Bernard M. Epstein, charging them with manslaughter by culpable negligence in a Florida trial court.
- The defendants were tried together before a jury and were convicted.
- The trial court denied the defendants' motions for a new trial.
- Gian-Cursio and Epstein, as appellants, appealed their convictions to the District Court of Appeal of Florida, Third District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a chiropractic physician's treatment of a patient with active tuberculosis, using only a diet and fasting regimen while knowing of the disease, constitute culpable negligence sufficient to support a manslaughter conviction when the patient forgoes conventional medical treatment and subsequently dies from the disease?
Opinions:
Majority - Judge Carroll
Yes, a chiropractic physician's treatment of active tuberculosis with only diet and fasting can constitute culpable negligence sufficient for a manslaughter conviction. The court held that when a person undertakes to treat a disease, they cannot escape the consequences of gross ignorance of accepted and established remedies. The appellants' good faith belief in their drugless healing methods is not a defense where their actions demonstrate a gross lack of competency, gross inattention, or criminal indifference to the patient's safety, leading to the patient's death. Citing Hampton v. State, the court affirmed that criminal liability for manslaughter depends on whether the practitioner's conduct reaches the level of criminal negligence, which is a question for the jury. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that the appellants' treatment advanced the patient's tuberculosis and caused his death, thereby meeting the standard for culpable negligence.
Analysis:
This case establishes that practitioners of alternative medicine are not exempt from criminal liability for manslaughter when their treatments for serious, well-understood diseases deviate so extremely from established medical standards as to constitute gross negligence. It reinforces the legal principle that good faith or adherence to a particular school of thought (like 'drugless healing') is not a defense against a charge of criminal negligence if the practitioner is grossly ignorant of effective, life-saving treatments. The decision affirms that the legal system can impose a baseline standard of care, rooted in established medical science, to protect the public from treatments that are foreseeably dangerous for life-threatening conditions. It signals to all healthcare providers that they are accountable to the state for the consequences of grossly incompetent treatment, regardless of their title or methodology.
Unlock the full brief for Gian-Cursio v. State