X-RAY TREATMENT.

Hokitika Guardian, 23 July 1924, Page 1

X-RAY TREATMENT.

PATIENT CLAIAIS DA ADAGES

AUCKLAND. July 21. Alleging negligent conduct of X-ray treatment, as a result of which his left hand was severely burned, Peter Andrew Nairn Smith, engineer, Auckland, took action in tlio Supreme Court against August Jlracklebush. masseur, Auckland, and George de Clive Lowe, medical practitioner, Auckland, claiming jointly and severally the sum of €S0l) general damages, €230 special damages, for loss of profit from his business, and €10!) special damages for medical and hospital expenses. The case was heard before -Mr Justice Stringer and a special jury of twelve.

The statement' of claim set forth that in (1) September, 1919, plaintiff damaged his hand in a lathe and the wound did not heal completely. Jn May, 1920, defendants undertook to hl*al the hand by a course of X-ray treatment, which Hrackobush alloyed was given under the supervision and direction of tie Clive I,owe, and (it was alloyed) defendants so ncyliyently conducted the treatment that plaintiff improperly suffered severe X-ray burn. As a result, plaintiff suffere d great pain and incurred further medical and hospital expenses in an endeavour to remedy the evil. Finally, after a long course of unsuccessful treatment, plaintiff had to undergo an operation and have the burned portions of the hands removed and a piece of flesh from his arm grafted on, thereby Smith suffered permanent disfigurement. to the hand and loss of much time and profit from his calling, and incurred further medical expenses. The defence set tin by Dr do Clive I,owe was a general denial of the allegation. lie denied that Hrackebusli gave plaintiff the course of X-ray treatment which Hrackebusli alleged bad been given under the supervision and direction of defendant, de Clive I .owe, and that defendant so negligently conducted the treatment that plaintil!' suffered burn.

The defence filed by Hrackebusli was a .general denial of tile allegations and a denial that the treatment of plaintiff was directed to the healing of a wound caused by auv lorm of physical injury. Defendant allaged that plaintiff was suffering front epithelioma, oi cancer, on the tissue- on the hack of the hand, and that lie (Hrackebusli) undertook to and did treat such condition according to and under the supervision ot plaintiff s medical advisor, Dr de Clive Lowe. Tn evidence, plaintiff said bis business bad gone back Cl 100 while lie was umlfr trr*ninit*nt. Medical evidence was given for the

ilolVnco. The hearing was adjourned

SVKCI.VTi .11'l’cY DISAOUKKS. ACCKbAND, .Tilly 2d.

Tile action in the Supreme Court- in whi.li l’etcr Andrew Xairn Smith claimed £1 lot' damages and medical expenses from August Tfrackehash. masseur, and (ieorgo di> ( live T.ouo. fin- alleged negligence in X-ray treatment. resulted in a special Jury failing to agree on the verdict. Ihe Jm-y was discharged, his Honour remarking the plaintiff could, if he chose, institute another action.