A DOCTOR'S CHARGES.

Dominion, Volume 5, Issue 1492, 15 July 1912, Page 6

A DOCTOR'S CHARGES.

■■""'' "V ■ CLAIM RESISTED. PLKA OP UNSKILFUL TREATMENT. COURT FINDS FOR. DOCTOR. (By Telejraph.-Press Association.; Auckland, July 14. A judgment of ituportaneu was delivered at tliu" Magistrate's Court by Mr. C. C. Kettle, S.JI., in a case in which Dr. Hush Keith claimed' tho eiini of «Cl 2 12s. from \V. S. Siiell«r for professional attendance on the tatter's wife in the early part of 19D7. Mr. Kettle said that in this caso tho defendant admitted the aUemUnwo, ami also that, it' plaintiff wew .entitled to recover, the fees charged by him were reasonable. Defendant, however, resisted plaintiff's claim in respect of the attendances subsequent to the patient's eoniinonient on the ground that her long indisposition was due to plaintiff's ignorance, want ol skill, and breach of duty, and that, therefore, p&iutift was uot entitled to recover for eiioh attendances.

The action was commenced in June, 19)1, about four years after the services were rendered, and the doctor's explanation of his delay in prosecuting was that he never sued his patients for fees due, and would not have biken proceedings against defendant but for the fact that it had come to his knowledge that it had been said that he (plaiutiff) had not thu courage to sue, and did not desire to havt his treatment of defendant's wife investigated in a court of justice.

Professional negligence, or want of reasonable skill in the treatment of tho case (said Air. Kettle), if clearly proved, was undoubtedly a. sufficient answer to a claim by a practitioner for his fees. Professional men were not infallible, but when there was reasonable room for doubt or diversity of opinion, an honest error o£ judgment was, lie thought, excusable. If the error wbs one into which a prudent man might, under the circumstances,' honestly fall, he did not think that tho practitioner could be held responsible. Therefore, in the ease before him, he had to decide whether defendant (on whom the onus of proof rested) had clearly established that plaintiff's treatment was lacking in ordinary knowledge, skill, and care. It was alleged that, during the period of Dr. Keith's treatment, Mrs. Sneller was euffering from appendicitis, that he went en treating the symptoms in unjustifiable ignorance of what she was reallv suffering from, and did'not even disclose to he; husband that the case was a difficult and puzzling one, or suggest a consultation with another medical man. Mr. Kettle said that his decision, must r.ot be based on his personal opinion of plaintiff's conduct and treatment, but on the weight of expert medical testimony culled by both sides. The only expert witness called by defendant was Dr. James Moir—an old and experienced practitioner. The latter stated, in effect, that after studying the caso very carefully he had come to the conclusion that plaintiff's treatment of Mrs. Sneller had shown a rant of reasonable knowledgo and skill. On the other hand, Dr. Savage, an experienced and eminent surgeon, who was called in by Dr. Moir to examine Mrs. Sneller immediately after plaintiff had ceased to attend her, expressed the opinion that the caso was a somewhat complicated and troublesome one. Dr. Savage, with full knowledge of the history of the case, was not prepared to say that plaintiff had shown a want of reasonable knowledge or skill, and would not condemn or even adversely criticise him. In view tf the conflicting testimony of two equally reliable expert witnesses of high standing (the only experts called), he did not think that the defence which had been set up. had been clearly established. Judgment would bo entered for plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs.