CASE? AGAINST DOCTOR AND SON

Dominion, Volume 37, Issue 225, 20 June 1944, Page 3

CASE? AGAINST DOCTOR AND SON

Alleged Social Security Offences

(By Telegraph.—Press Association-.) AUCKLAND, June 19.

The adjourned hearing of nine prosecutions against a medical practitioner, Philip Richard Cross, and two against his son, Philip Eustace Cross medical student, alleging breaches of the Social •Security Act, was concluded before Mr. Levien, S.M. It was alleged that between September, 1042, and July, 1943. Dr. Cross had misled an officer concerned in the administration of the Social Security Act for the purpose of obtaining payment from the Social Security r unci in respect of medical services rendered. In six cases it was alleged that no medical services were rendered, and in the .remaining three that the value of the services given was half the payment claimed. The total amount involved in the first six charges was £5/7/6 and in the other three it was alleged that f--5/. was claimed for instead of xl/2/o. The information against Cross, jun., alleged that he had on two occasions wrongfully signed a medical prescription with the name of a registered medical practitioner and had thereby misled a chemist and an officer of the department for the purpose of obtaining benefits uner the Social Security Act. Both accused pleaded not guilty. Continuing his opening remarks for the defence, Mr. Goldstine submitted that medical services were rendered in the case of a child suffering from measles. As the result of a telephone call Dr. Cross told his son that he suspected that the child had measles and, if that was found correct when the child was brought to the surgery,. to give the parents a certain prescription. Cross, jun., saw the child and wrote out the prescription directed by his father. This prescription was the subject of one of' the charges against Cross, jun. In a case where two visits were claimed for instead of one, a mistake was admitted, said Mr. Goldstine. A visit by a patient was entered on a benefit form, but as Dr. Cross was unwell she was seen by Cross, jun., and told to return. The first visit was mistakenly left on the form when the second visit was claimed for. Regarding the second charge against Cross, jun., a prescription was again written by the son on his father’s instructions. In respect of both charges they were doctor’s prescriptions written out by the son as the doctor’s agent. . ...... Evidence along the lines indicated by Mr. Goldstine was given by Cross, jun. The statement of a previous witness that she had been examined by him was incorrect, said defendant. She had been examined by his father. Decision was reserved.