ILLNESS OF RETURNED MEN

Taranaki Daily News, 20 November 1926, Page 15

ILLNESS OF RETURNED MEN

RESPONSIBILITIES OF DOCTORS. AN INTERESTING JUDGMENT. An interesting judgment touching the responsibilities of medical practitioners in regard to the treatment of returned soldiers was delivered by Mr. R. W Tate, S.M., in the Opunake Court yesterday, when he gave judgment in favour of a returned soldier in a case in which a doctor sued him for medical attendance. The claim was that in which T. N. Watt, medical practitioner, of Opunake (Mr. R. E. Bacyertz) sued F. Rye. farmer, of Te Kiri (Mr. H. L. Spratt I for £3l 17» fid.

In giving judgment the magistrate stated that in view of his previous “boarding” of the defendant, plaintiff must be presumed to have known he was a returned soldier. Th- nitJical treatment of returned soldiers was governed by regulations gazet-ed on April 26, i 924. The effect of these regulations was that the Slate wou’i'l p.ovifle mei’ieal treatment for returned s.dh'rS, and expressly provided that the State would not be responsible for treatment undertaken without authority, but. in a ease of urgency might pay for th? first attendance of the medical practitioner. Hint practice was in force in 19’3. The duty <>t informing the authorities of the illness of the soldier lay on the soldier and- tho medical practitioner.

In the case tinder review die soldier was too ill to be eom[«‘tcnt to inform the authorities. The plaintiff should have dine eo, and probably would have done so but for the fact that at the time he considered the illness did not arise from military disability Subsequently it was decided that the illness did arise from military disability, and the hospital treatment was wholly paid by the State. Payment had b*-n mala or tendered by the State for the plaintiff’s first visit, but no payment, hud been made for the succeeding visits. The question was whether the defendant patient should pay. He thought the difficulty had arisen through the failure of the plaintiff to notify the authorities of the soldier's illness, and that it was a case when he should invoke section 92 and give judgment for defendant in equity and good conscience. Judgment waa accordingly given for defendant, each party to pay bis ov <