MEDICAL MAN’S CLAIM.

Hokitika Guardian, 2 September 1924, Page 3

MEDICAL MAN’S CLAIM.

PATIENT WHO DEMANDED DAILY VISIT.

AUCKLAND, August 30.

Novel features wero revealed in .the Supremo Court in a claim by a medical practicioner for £3OO for professional services extending over two years and a half to a deceased lady. Plaintiff’ was Dr J. E. Miller, 'lakapunn, and defendants were the Guardian Trust and F. 11. Wood, executors of Mrs J. J. Morgan, who died in St'i>-

tember, 1923.

Mr Singer, for plaintiff, said Dr Miller had apparently attended -Mrs Morgan through 1921-2-3, and by his* services kept her alive for u considerable time. He had paid 599 visits to deceased and witnesses would say tlisrt those attentions were really demanded by the lady, in fact the evidence would siiow that if the doctor did -not attend he was rung up. On many occasions he had endeavoured to cense attending, but that resulted in the ladygoing hack ill health. Deceased was suffering from heart trouble. Frequently she said she was going to pay plaintiff, but had not made any payment on account.

Plaintiff stated in evidence that deceased had said he was the only doctor who made her led better. She insisted on a daily visit and had asked him not to send all account, adding that she could not live much longer and that there would he plenty of money to pay him after her death. Cross-examined, plaintiff referred to deceased’s condition of hysteria and said that in such a case comfort could

l v given after securing the patient’s confidence. He admitted that it was not necessary to go every day. Counsel referred to a sudden drop in plaintiff’s charges from CB Bs to £2 2s for a month.

Plaintiff'explained that that was due to his refusing to go daily. He had j sent in a hill for £2OO. I

Mr A. 11. Johnstone (for defend nuts) : I suggest to you il "a* for LIOII Witness: Excuse me. it "as not.

Plaintiff, proceeding, said the hill was sent in at the end of 1922, when the amount due to him was £27(1. Counsel: I put it to you that you discovered the lady was not in a position to pay!* I absolutely deny that. Plaintiff said that ultimately lie reduced his visits to one a "i-ek. Counsel: Why "as that ? l loitld

not stand the strain. Plaintiff' denied refusing to give a certificate of death unless a postmortem examination was held. A post-mortem, examination was held because there was talk to Ifeet that there was nothing the matter with Mrs Morgan.

Clara. Knight, companion to de-l leased, said that Mrs Morgan wanted; plaintiff' to call every day. His at-: tendance cheered her very much. j Sydney C. Allen, medical practi-. tinner, who on two occasions had | acted as locum tenons for plaintiff, j said he got into awful trouble when, be did not. make a daily visit to Mrs ■ Morgan. She spoke of Dr Miller as;, ••the only mail who hail ever done her: any good.” j Mr Johnstone: Do you say a medical man would consider it his duty to go j every day ? \ Hi's Honor: It is a question whether j she demanded it. ! Mr Singer: We say she would probably have been out- of Imr mind but j for plaintiff's attention. j The Rev J. C. Monekton, vicar <>t , Takapilini, .-.aid that deceased very j frequently told him that, plaintiff had j done her good. i Air Johnstone: Did you see her fre-1 fluently? —Once a week. | Did you find your visits cheered her ) up it Not a great deal. (Laughter), j Air Johnstone said the estate was i worth something undei £IOOO. Hr sub-, mitted that the proper course, would have re-on foi plaintiff to iell the- o’-dy ■ he could do no good by comnig daily. His Honor: Suppose she had said. *

“Doctor, you may think you are not doing me :mv good. Gilt I {cel you ,ite and 1 am pleased (■> pay for your attendance." Would not he lie justified

ill attending? Cotinsel I Hint that was so. He pointed out, however, that latterly plaintiff only visited the lady mice a week. Frederick Henry Wood stated Hint deceased's income was about L'-’oll a rear and was far less than her expenditure. bill from plamtill be saw was for 9100. Plaintiff refused to

give a death certificate unless a postmortem examination was held. \ H-| lless strongly objected, but be 8"'" ; His Honor questioned plaintiff ; > v j t„ the amount of the lie sub- t. mitletl. Plaintiff said it was ab-olnte-.f tin,rue to say it was only lor 9199. _ | His Honor in. giving judgment said .; it was clear that plaintiff was eld it led j; t „ recover in bis action, although it ! was a somewhat, startling account, in ~ doctor had a patient of this type; derived or believe,l she derived t some mental comfort from the doetot s (tendance, and demanded that a medt- ,,,| man should attend, he was .pute in his rights to visit her. IDs Honor thought that w Ill'll plaint ill *nhunllv J i,is account tor 9299. although l-'-)S S c,l was then due. lie meant that to 1... a red,telioli of the amount, therelore. the proper amount to allow wou.tl . I„, the aimiunt tdaiii'eil < L3ol> 1 <s). [ loss £7ll 18s (id. making a final amount j of C2“9 18s lid. Judgment was nr- j cordingly entered lor plaintilf for 9229 lSs lid with costs. [