EPIDEMIC CHARGES

Dominion, Volume 13, Issue 53, 26 November 1919, Page 9

EPIDEMIC CHARGES

DOCTOR'S CLAIM REDUCED INTERESTING ACTION The. claim of Dr. Wallace- Mackenzie against Miss It; Stansall, of Lyall Bay, for fees in connection with"".nttendanco dunng the late epidemic, which was disputed on tho ground fnat the - chwges wore excessive, came up for hearing before; Mr. P. -L. Hoi Hugs, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday. The claim was for ,tlo 10s., „1 Is. for each of ten visits. . . . ... ■Mr. C. B. O'Doimeil represented tho plaintiff and Air. P. Waul appeared for ■ Miss Stansall. • In opaniug his case counsel for plaintiff referred to the trying times which prevailed'during the .epidemic. His client bad charge of Brooklyn.. Lyall Bay and Mirauiar districts, and in order to give his attention to the many ; patients • in those districts he had to neglect his town practice. For his work {hiring tho epidemic he received from thq Government _„]|il 7s. by w'ay'ff an honorarium and in addition to this amount ho rooeived £1 3s. from a regular client-,The rilaintilt' had Iwon given to understand by the Public Health Department that ho would in no way snlfer by devoting his available time in.attending : .cpidcinio cases and that the Government ..would pay for attend.\nce on those persons who were unable to pay. . ... • The Magistrate:'Do I understand flint tho. amount paid by the Government to the.plaintiff includes payment for attendance on the defendant? . - . . Counsel: No, sir. Dr. Mackenzie received the amount from the Government us compensation for loss, on his private ■practice. It was reallv an honorarium. The Magistrate: I take'it, then, that the Government paid for those persons who could' not pay. Counsel replied that it amounted to that, but in the defendant's case it was contended that she was able to ' payApart from tho extraordinary circumFtaneos of the case his client resided-in, Wellington, and to attend, to patients' at Lyall Bay he had to travel five miles, and the charge for a single visit would lie _2 2s. ■ Instead of making this charge his client only charged Is. for each visit. Counsel submitted that the charges .were reasonable and in accordance with practice. ' - . ... The plaintiff gave evidence to the effect that he was an eye, ear and throat specialist, as well as a'qualified'medical' practitioner. During the epidemic he was appointed to theLyall Bay, Seatoun, •Miramar and Kilbirnie* districts. Prior to tho introduction of the block system he had a number of jxitients at Brooklyn, but these ivcre subsequently taken over by another doctor. He received .£lsl from the Government. He had made 700 visits, and the amount he received from tho Government worked out at 3s. 4d. per visit. It was eleven weeks after the epidemic before witness could attend to his private practice owing to strain of work, and during that period, he went shepherding at Dannevirkc to recuperate his health. He .was not a member of the-.British- Medical Association, and his fee for consultation was£l Is., and he had never charged less. Ho did not make, an agreement-with the Government to accept a fee of ,£7 7s. .per day, but the amount he received represented an honorarium. To-Mr. Ward: AVitne?s rendered an account to the Government for the full amount of the few which he considered he'was entitled to for his services 'during the epidemic. His reason for this was that he'was of the opinion that,the epidemic' carri(> into; the country with the • ship, which the Prime Minister' (the Hon.' Mr. W. F.-'MasseyVaiwlSir Joseph Ward, returned to the Dominion by, and therev fore the Government should pay. He with Dr. Fanlko were the only two doctore in Wellington who gave'up the ■whole of their practice to attend to epidemic patients. He had only "' lost one patient during the epidemic,-and he had not made any agreement with the Lyall Bay Epidemic Committee not to charge epidemic workers for his ■ services: He would have certainly agreed to such an arrangement had it been : suggested... ....- . ■,■-.:■ „. -- ■ The Defence. '.. . Dr. Wv■'Kington Fyfic, president of the New Zealand branch ot the' British Medical Association, said that tlie arrangements made with the Government were tnat members of the profession would be allowed X 7 7s. p»r day for three weeks and £2 per!day motor allow-' once. Patients who could pay were to be' charged reasunablo fei'S in addition;. The usual charge for a visit by a doctor was 10s. Gd.; and this was a reasonable fee. ■ At a time when the community was in peril it would be extortionate to eharg« a fee of <tl Is. for each visit. It-'dul not matter where a doctor was called from: IBs. fid. was a fair clinrge-for-i-a 6inglo visit In his opinion during a period such as the epidemic a higher fee. than 10s. Gd. should not have: been charged Many members of the profession had'lo3t heavily during the epidemic. ■: ■

The defendant, Ruby Ellen Stansall, said that she was assisting the Lyall Bay Epidemic Committee'and whilst engaged jn this work she contracted the diseaseDr. Mackenzie attended her. arid, paid seven visits. • '

To Mr. O'Duiinol]: She did not liiivo influenza in ii s>vero form. Plaintiff might not have known she was nursing patients, but he called at. the' house where she was engaged. Alexander Gellatly, ivho was chairman of the J/,vnll Bay Epidemic Committee', said- that the plaintiff wag 6upplied with n motor-car by the committer. "Dr. Mackenzie was at the Hay practically, all day and night, and each day ho was snp- - plied with a list of'the patients to be visited. On many days the lists were to heavy that it was impossible.-for him' to visit all in a day. As a result someof the ca'SM were not visited on the particular day set down unless they were Eerie. . After the epidemic plaintiff informed the committee- that he had not ' been paid and the committee made representations to the Government. "When thedoctor was told that Miss Stansall was "ft helper he said that, he would • not chflrpro for attendances on helpers. Counsel for the defence said that it was rpeogr.is.-yf that the plaintiff-was en- ' titled to reasonable fees. The defendant, bad paid into -the Court a sum of £\ •!••?. in satisfaction of the claim, being .£1 Is for the first vi-it and 10s. Cd. for the .remaining six visits.

His Worship that the plaintifE would have more knowledjic of the number of-visits paid to defendant than she would. .Tudmiiont would be for the ■plaintilf for .£5 tfn. fid., beinj; .£1 Is. for the first visit a?id ffis. Cd. each for the. nine subsequent visits; Security for appeal was fixed at J& Bs.