A DOCTOR'S FEES.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXIV, Issue 1071, 18 July 1912, Page 3

A DOCTOR'S FEES.

IMPORTANT JUDGMENT

A judgment of importance was delivered at the Auckland Magistrate’s Court last Saturday by Mr C. C. Kettle, S.M., in a case in which Dr. Hugh Keith claimed the sum id £l2 12s from W. S. Sneller. M md. said that the delendant admitted the attendances, and also mat, if plaintiff were entitled to recover, the fees charged by him were reasonable. Defendant, however, resisted plaintiff’s claim in respect of the attendances subsequent to the patient’s confinement on the ground that her long indisposition was due to plaintiff’s ignorance, want of skill, and breach of duty, and that, therefore, plaintiff was not entitled to recover for such attendances. The action was commenced in June, 1911, about lour years’ alter the services were rendered, and the doctor’s explanation of his delay in prosecuting was that he never sued his patients for fees due, and would not have taken proceedings against defendant but lor the fact that it had come to his knowledge that it had been said that he (plaintiff) had not the courage to sue, and did not desire to have his treatment of defendant’s wife investigated in a court of justice. Professional negligence, or want of reasonable skill in his treatment of the case (said Mr Kettle), if clearly proved, was undoubtedly a sufficient answer to claim by a practitioner for his fees. Protessional men were not infallible, but when there was reasonable room for doubt or diversity of opinion, an honest error of judgment was, he thought, excusable. If ihe error was one into which a prudent man might, under the circumstances, honestly fall, he did not think that the practitioner could be held responsible. Therefore, in the case before him, he did not decide whether defendant (on whom the onus of proof rested) had clearly established that plaintiff’s treatment was lacking in ordinary knowledge, skill, and care. It was alleged that, during the period of Dr. Keith’s treatment, Mrs Sneller was suffering from appendicitis, that he went on treating the symptoms in unjustifiable ignorance ol what she was really suffering from, and did, not even disclose to her husband that the case was a difficult and puzzling one, or suggest a consultation with another medical man. Mr Kettle said that his decision must not be based on his personal opinion of plaintiff’s conduct and treatment, but on the weight of expert medical testimony called by both sides. The only expert witness called by delendant was Dr. James Moir —an old and experienced practitioner. The latter stated, in effect, that alter studying the case very carelully, he had come to the conclusion that plaintiff's treatment of Mrs Sneller had shown a want ol reasonable knowledge and skill. On the other hand, Dr. Savage, an experienced

and eminent surgeon, who was called in by Dr. Moir to examine ' Mrs Sneller immediately alter plaintiff had ceased to attend her, expressed the opinion that the case was a somewhat complicated and troublesome one. Dr. Savage, with full knowledge ot the history of the case, was not prepared to say that plaintiff had shown a want ol reasonable knowledge or skill, and would not condemn or even adversely criticise him. In view of the conflicting testimony of two equally reliable expert witnesses ot high standing (.the only experts called) he did not think that the defence which had been set up had been clearly established. Judgment would be entered for plaintiff for the amount claimed with costs.