DOCTOR SUES PATIENTS

Hokitika Guardian, 21 October 1924, Page 4

DOCTOR SUES PATIENTS

FURLIC HOSPITAL IN.MATES. j CLAIMED AS PRIVATE CASES. ‘

Toil oases were hoard before Mr Salmon, S.M. at Coromandel, in ivhieli |)r ,T. Spencer Daniell, medical superintendent of the Coromandel Hospital, and a former medical superintendent of Honiara Ilosiptal. sued hospital patients for surgical operations 'and attendances, the doi'undu.nts Loin" E. .1. Surllin (Cl Is), E. M. Park (Cl Is), I'. Audlev Clo Lis), P. E. Gammon (C2l), Ecclestone (CCI). S. Gould (Cl Is), M. Itakieh (C 7 7s), F. M. Itannaford (C(! (is), 11. E. Harvey ( Co 12s lid), and W. C. Denize (CIO 10s). For plaintiff, Air Clendon said that under the terms of his engngment, he had the right to private practice, and also under certain rules by tvhich hospital subscribers received concessions and benefits in considerdation id' their suberiptions the plaintiff was entitled to charge subscribers for operations of convenience, but not lor operations of urgency. Plaintiff claimed to be entitled to sue the first six defendants under the subscribers’ rules and the remaining four as his private patients. INTERPRETATION OF RULES.

Giving evidence, plaintiff admitted that lie was in receipt of a salary ol C.IOO a year from the board, with a free dwelling house. He considered that all patients who were not subscribers to the hospital were his own private patients, liable to pay bis own special fee, as well as the ordinary hospital maintenance charges. With regard to the defendant subscribers, he said that all the operations for which he was suing for fees were operations of convenience within the meaning of the rules, lie claimed that lie was the sole judge of whether they were operations of convenience or operations of urgency, and that his fees were reasonable. With regard to maternity cases he considered he had a right to charge tM Is for cases treated at the hospital. Evidence was also given by Dr biggins, Thames, and Miss Mason, matron of the Coromandel Hospital. .il.r llurgess, instructed by the Coromandel Hospital Hoard, appeared lor all defendants, lie asked for a nonsuit on the ground that under Section .11 of the Destitute Persons Act, 1910, the cost of treatment of patients at a public hospital was a debt due to the board, and that, therefore, the plaintiff could not sue in his own name. The magistrate said he would allow .Mr Clendon time to consider the contention.

HOARD RELIES ON RY-I.AWS. It was further contended bv Air llurgess that there was no privity of contract between the patient and the board’s medical officer. Assuming that plaintiff could sue under rule 7 of the subscribers’ rules, plaintiff must prove first that the operation came within the rules, and second.

that lie had entered into a specific contract with defendant for payment of it fee. A further point raised was that the subscribers’ rules were not approved by the Minister as rei|itired by sections 05 or 70, ot the Hospitals it ml Charitable Institutions Act, and, therefore, were not in force, whereas the by-laws, though in need of revision, were still in force. Uv-law 19 provided that no fee should be paid to or taken by any officer of the board. Evidence was given bv the defendants and others. With reference to an operation performed on their infant son. Mr and Mrs llaunaford slated that the operation was performed without their knowledge or permissh n. and eontiary to the expressed wish of Mrs I lannaloid, who bad told Sisters .Morton and Merrick that she would not consent to the operation.

lii rebuttal, Mr (Tendon called the mat roll, who said slie and 11 10 pla inti II tlad discussed the operation at Mrs Ifniiiiaford's bedside, dinin'; the ninrniniimuil. end tluil the letter lied not n!|Vnd ,'H e’ii' ' t'ee t'i-e - I the admitted she was net i|ii.dilied in

midwifery and that Sister Morton "as the qualified nurse in eliuige ~f Mrs I laiinul'nrd’s ease. Counsel for defendant submitted that plaintiff could not treat private patients in the public hospital, and that private practice could only mean outside a hospital. The magistrate reserved his decision, further argument to ho submitted in writing.

A further case was one in which Mr Clotwoi thy sued Or Danioil lor L‘3 3s. Mr llurgoss, for plaintiff, said the claim was for money alleged to he illegall.v demanded by the defendant under colour of his office as superintendent of the hospital, and paid to him, by the plaintiff, who was a patient ol the institution.

After the evidence of plainlill and his wife hail been given, .Mr Clcudon, who appeared for defendant., said ho could not proceed with the defence. Defendant thereupon, paid the amount claimed, and costs, and the case was struck out. The claim and costs amounted to Cl l 7s.