ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE

Evening Star, Issue 21746, 14 June 1934, Page 10

ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE

CLAIM AGAINST SOUTH OTAGO HOSPITAL BOARD WOMAN'S HEELS BURNED BY WATER BAGS . BALCLUTHA, June 13. Alleging that the negligence of members of the staff' of the South Otago Hospital in placing hot water bags at her feet while she was still under the effects of an anaesthetic resulted in her heels being severely burned. Mrs Matilda Hewitt yesterday sought to recover £l4l 9s fid m damages and expenses from the boutli Otago Hospital Board. Jhc hearing of the action was taken in the Balclutha Magistrate’s Court before Mr H. J. Dixon, S.M. . . Mr E 4 Anderson conducted the care for’Mrs Hewitt, Mr R- ». Grigor representing the Hospital Boaid. Mrs Hewitt claimed in all the sum of £l4l 9s fid-general e damagesi ot £l2o and special damages of £l6 9s 6d. ihe special damages were made up as tollows:—Wages of a servant employed during the period of her incapacity (fifteen weeks at 12s 6d per week>, £9 7s 6d: medical attention, £2 2s; cost of motor transport to and from the hospital and obtaining medica, attention on various occasions, £o. Addressing the court Mr Amlersou said that Mrs/Hewitt entered the South Otago Hospital on Dr D. M-s advice on November 14, 1933. On her entrv to the institution she was a perfectly fit woman who was to have some special surgical attention, tn any case her heels were perfectly sound and healthy. She was put on the operating table at 9 a.m. on the following day, and appeared to have been heavily authorised with a compara. tivelv new form of anaesthetic. She partially came to in a special ward ot which she was the only occupant late in the evening of that day to find three of the nursing staff at her bedside examining her heels. At this time she partially realised that her heels had been burned. One of .the nurses explained that it was “,iust pressure. She complained about the pain m bei heels, hut was told that there was nothing the matter with them, ana that the operation had not been performed on her heels. Mrs Hewitt then went off again ' and did not come to until the next morning, when she was, told that the hot water bottles had burned' her heels. She had them-dressed as much as three or four times a day for the ensuing three or four weeks. Mrs Hewitt alleged that she was asked by the sister-m-charce not to say anything to anyone.- She did. however, .mention i the matter to her husband a day or so after the operation, but asked him not to make a complaint in the meantime. Tt was hot until December o that Dr Frongley realised that she had had her heels burned. He remarked that it was unfortunate, and to the . sister-in-charge that the heels were, beautifully clean. ' . , Tt was obvious, stated Mr Andeison. ! that the nursing staff hoped that the : heels would clear up within three !- weeks, which was the period it would !' take for the patient to recover from the "snrcical operation. If tins had been ' so the doctor would not need to have- ; known about tbe allegations regarding i the hums by the nurse. But the burns 1 were more serious than this, and. because of the delay in Mrs Howut s recovery. he did discover the tine position. Mrs Hewitt, suffered . considerable pain with her heels during those three weeks. To sleep she had to havethe help of drugs, and dressings were put on three or four times a day. it would appear from the evidence that tlie Tnairon did not know the position until December 6. . , • . - The patient had to he carried out of the hospital on December 24. and" was brought tn Dunedin by car to receive medica] advice. During the month of January she was just able to get about hy walking on her toes.^and was not m a fit state to attend to her household fluties. Dr Frengley had provided her with ointment to apply to . her , heels.. and in fact, she still required attention, six months after the time of the burning. The nlaintiff would Say that the doctor told her that the scar of the right foot would disappear m twelve months, but that there would he a permanent scar on the left. Dr Trengley told Mrs Hewitt that the hospital would pay for certain liniment and chemist's supplies after her discharge from hosptal. She was , still, using the liniment prescribed - by him.. . Mr Anderson said .that Mrs Hewitt suffered considerably for tbe .first month. She would say that the sister-' in-charge, who dressed the burns, used to say: “Here comes the Torture Lady.” Competent medical opinions had been taken in evidence in Dunedin, and this would show that the burns were serious ones. Tf the damage to the tissues had been somewhat deeper the tendon Achilles would have become involved, and. if this foot structure had been damaged, permanent disability in either leg would have resulted, . , Mr Anderson asked leave to refer to the responsibility of the Hospital Board and its position in relation to its staff later in the hearing. But this appeared to he a case where the maxim “ Bos ipsa loquitur ” applied. In other words, when hot water bags were properly handled in hospitals sudh an accident as, this did not happen, and the omi? was on the defendant board to show, that there was no negligence. It would be submitted that the burning occurred" at the hands of a member of the staff who was discharging a purely ministerial function, and who was in no sense performing a technical or professional action. As to the quantum of damages, Mr Anderson suggested that the claim for the amount of the suffering sustained by this woman was really a modest one. She had not yet completely recovered, and for. the first three months suffered acutely. Indeed, concluded Mr Anderson, it was fortunate for the hoard that the burning of the tissue did not extend a little further, In that case there would have been per-, manent disability. He added -that just two days ago Mrs Hewitt’s left heel had broken down again, and only that morning there had been a discharge from it. . Speaking on the question of damages,, Mr Anderson said that in a recent case in Masterton where a man suffered burning to his feet' in a dental operation, where he could not have lain for so long on the offending hot-water bags, the general damages awarded amounted to £6O. The plaintiff then" gave evidence along the lines of counsel’s statements. Edward Hewitt, the husband of the plaintiff, said that at 5.30 p.m. on the day on which his wife was operated on he rang up the hospital to find that she was still under the ancesthetic. Two days later he visited her. and was told that her feet had been burned. She was sobbing, and he could see that she was in pain. On December 5 he referred the matter to Dr Frengley, and the doctor explained that “ Some d—— fool of a nurse ” had put the bag in the

bed without it being covered. The doctor told him that he was always telling them to take care, and also explained how a patient’s bed should be made by nurses, On Friday, December 8, witness had a further talk with the doctor, who said that the bags were covered with two covers and that there was a blanket between. Witness also said that the doctor told him that if anyone sat on the bags, even with these precautions, there would he a burning. The South Otago Hospital Board had sent a bill for £l7, covering the period of Airs Hewitt’s stay in hospital, to witness, and thi? had been paid through his lodge. Mr Anderson then put in the evidence of Dr W. Evans, which was taken in Dunedin. This evidence disclosed three examinations of Mrs Hewitt, extending from December 22 to May 17. Witness considered that the burns were serious ones, and added that if the damage to the tissues had been deeper the tendon achilles would have been affected. The burns were so placed as to suggest that the bag had lain directly and in a regular way under both heels. If the patient were conscious enough to move her legs so as to come into contact with the bags she would have had the necessary sense to react and withdraw her feet from the heat. A patient in tbe condition Mrs Hewitt was in should be watched regularly. In the condition witness found Mrs Hewitt lie would expect her to suffer a considerable amount of pain and loss of sleep and appetite This closed the case tor the plaintiff. For the board, Mr Grigor said that it would admit that there had been a want of care on the part of the nurse concerned. He wished to raise the question of the legal responsibility ol a hospital board for the negligence ot a nurse in its employ. Mr Grigor quoted authorities on the subject, and submitted that such a lapse as had occurred here did not make the South Otago Hospital Board responsible. Dr D. M. Frengley said that lie was joint superintendent of the Soutli Otago Hospital and also carried on a private practice. He saw the plaintiff regularly, practically every day after the operation. She was a little uncomfortable, but seemed to be doing quite satisfactorily. She did not appear to be suffering agony. Three weeks after the operation lie was informed of the burning and examined Mrs Hewitt’s heels. He was very much in accord with Dr Evans’s evidence, and agreed with what he said about the characteristics of the burns. He saw the dressings, and they were certainly painful. Dr Frengley considered that after the operation, and apart from the burns, Mrs Hewitt would have had to rest until about February 9. He knew the nurse 'concerned, and slie was a capable nurse. She had sat the hospital examination just before this, but then had yet to sit her Government examination. ■To Air Anderson, Dr Frengley said that this nurse was not in the operating theatre when Airs Hewitt was operated on. 1 put it to you. doctor, that the nurse’s work in' the’-ward was purely ministerial? —Yes, it was routine work. What was done with the niirse? — When she returned from sitting, the Government examination in Dunedin she was relieved of her duties. Air Anderson then produced two extracts from ‘Hewitt on Anaesthesia,’ which laid it down that hot-water bags or bottles should be taken away from the patient after the bed had been warmed, and Dr Frengley said that he agreed with tbe view of this authority. Isabella Bridson, matron of the hospital, said that she remembered the operation performed on Airs Hewitt. It Was reported to her three weeks later that the patient’s heels had been burned. She discussed it with Mrs Hewitt, and said that she was sorry and, that it was an unfortunate occurrence. The nurse concerned was a capable nurse. She knew how to prepare beds in wards for patients coming out of the operating theatre. Mr Anderson; I suggest to you that this girl was discharging her ward duties?—Witness: Yes. Is it not a sound and sensible precaution for nurses in the wards to feel frequently the position of hot-water bags and the patient’s legs?—Yes. Is that not a practice largely adopted?—Yes. Obviously, the nurse never felt the position of the bags or the position of the legs in this ease? —No. Agues Allan, sister-in-charge of the ward, said that she was in the theatre when the operation on Airs Hewitt was performed. The patient was put to bed, and witness went om with the aufesthetising of a second-operation case. She was not aware then of what had happened to Airs Hewitt. After the second operation she went to lunch, and it was 1.30 p.m. when she resumed charge of the ward. She then discovered the mistake about the hotwater bags, and this she rectified at once. She did not notice Mrs Hewitt’s heels then. She had worked with this nurse and found her capable. The sister then said that she decided that the matter should not be reported,' and gave the patient’s feet particular attention. She said that_ it was “ very decent ” of the plaintiff" to agree that the incident should uot be reported. The heel dressings were always painful, but Mrs Hewitt said that after they had been done she felt relieved. There was an occasional night when she was feeling bad and had no sleep. Mrs Hewitt' had the usual post-operation sedatives. Air Anderson; Did you say, when you came along with the tray of dressings, •• Here comes the Torture Lady? ” Witness; Yes, but that was more by way of a joke. While one can appreciate your feeling for the nurse, you regret now that you did not report the incident.—l do. I put it to you that from about 11.30 (i.in. to 1.30 p.m., when you came on duty again, the plaintiff’s heels lay on the hot-water bags unchecked ?—Yes, that would be so. What was it you rectified at 1,30?—When I looked at the patient 1 found that her heels were lying directly on the bag/ and I altered its position at once. Mr Anderson then addressed the court on the legal aspect of the case, and stated that a line of authorities in England showed that, while a physician or surgeon, because of his training skill, was clearly not a servant of the hospital authority, the relationship of master and servant did exist with respect to a . nurse-who was discharging ward duties of a ministerial or'routine nature. Mr Anderson submitted that clearly somebody was the master of this nurse in a routine or ward duty. It was not the doctor, and it must therefore be ihe Hospital Board. The Hospital and Charitable Institutions Act of 1926 gave such a board the powers of appointing, paying, and making by-laws of the control of the board’s staff, and, while the law said that physicians and surgeons were in an exclusive position, these powers did exist in respect to the nurse in this particular case. As to the damages, Air Anderson argued that if £6O could be awarded as general damages for burning after a comparatively light anaesthetic, as in the recent dental case in Masterton, from which tho recovery of the patient had apparently taken three mouths, then the claim for £125 in this case was not only reasonable. hut modest. Air Dixon intimated that ho wished to go into the legal aspect of the matter, and reserved his decision..