X-RAY TREATMENT.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 172, 22 July 1924, Page 7

X-RAY TREATMENT.

NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED. MEDICAL OPINION DIFFERS. . CLAIM for £1000. Further evidence was heard at the Supreme Court this morning in the special jury case, in which Peter Andrew Nairn Smith, engineer, of Auckland, proceeded against August Brackebush, masseur, of Auckland, and George de Clive Lowe, medical practitioner, of Auckland, for the sum of £800 as general damages, £250 as special damages for ' i loss of profit, and £100 special damages ' i for medical and hospital expenses. He ■ alleged that X-ray treatment prescribed by Dr. de Clive Lowe, and administered ■by Brackebush, was conducted negligently, as the result of which he suffered, an X-ray burn, and subsequently ' permanent disfigurement. ' j Mr. Justice Stringer presided. The 1 plaintiff was represented by Mr. Leary. For Brackebush, Mr. Alan Moody ; appeared, and Dr. de Clive Lowe was represented by Mr. Singer. j Cross-examined by Mr. Moody, plain- ; tiff said he was too late to claim insurance. Under cross-examination by Mr. ! Singer plaintiff admitted that he did not tell anyone, except his counsel, that defendant, Dr. de Clive Lowe, said he ! would supervise the X-ray treatment being administered by Brackebush. Be- ' cause plaintiff understood Brackebush to : say that he carried out the treatment under the direction of Dr. de Clive Lowe \ the last-named was joined as defendant Ji in the action. "Condition Due to Overdose." 1 Dr. Hector Bruce Mackenzie, radi--1 ologist and specialist in Bkin troubles, I gave extensive evidence concerning j methods of X-ray treatment on scientific lines. Witness was of opinion that the condition of plaintiff's hand in 1923 was due to an overdose of X-ray treatment. That there was no cancer was shown by a microscopic examination. When plaintiff complained of pain the operator should have taken warning, eince it was an indication of a commencing burn. Radio dermititis was a progressive condition, and could be delayed for days, weeks, months, or even years. There. ' were a certain number. of cancers which could not be cured by X-ray. His Honor: Just one general question, doctor. Given a competent doctor, exercising reasonable care and skill, operating in a case of this sort, should an : X-ray burn result ?—No, certainly not. Assuming that an X-ray burn did result, to what would you attribute it—over-dosing or inefficient appliances? —There might be a mistake in the apparatus. It is very easy to make a mistake. To Mr. Moody: Witnees considered that in May and June a gross overdose of X-ray was administered. It was hie opinion that high frequency treatment, such as was administered after Smith complained of pain, following on X-ray treatment, was an old fashioned method, ' and useless for X-ray burns. He considered high frequency an irritant in such a case. • Swelling Not Doe to X-Ray. Dr. John Falconer Brown gave evidence concerning the treatment he prescribed for plaintiff's hand. To Mr. Singer: The swelling en plaintiff's hand was in no way due to X-ray treatment. The point was then raised by Mr. Singer that defendant, De Clive Lowe, be dismissed from the action. Mr. Leary objected. Dr. Lowe should have supervised the whole treatment. "I say that between the two of them • they wrongfully burned my client," said Mr. Leary. ✓ Mr. Justice Stringer: At the present juncture I must say that you have made no case whatever against Dr. de Clive Lowe. I must retain him in the action, but I can see no case against hilb. Mr. Singer stated that Dr. de Clive Lowe was prepared to withdraw the application for dismissal. He was 1 -prepared to give evidence. , Evidence by Dr. Lowe. I Defendant, George Thomas Humphrey i de Clive Lowe, was called by Mr. Moody. He deposed that on May 27, • 1920, plaintiff came to consult him for , a non-healing sore on the back of the ■ left hand. Smith said the sore had . been present for from nine to twelve months. The history given was that while at work the hand was injured, would not heal, was constantly being irritated by his work. Witness had tried to form a mental picture of a non-healing sore. He got a negative history of tuberculosis, diabetes, and another disease, and judged by the ■ appearance of the sore, its position, its 1 duration, its character and situation. \ and the age of the patient, with repeated i i injuries taking place at his work, wit- ! ' ness got .a tentative diagnosis for an 1 J epithelimotous change on the tissues >I on the back of the hand. Witness told s i plaintiff he should have X-ray treatment - for the hand. He recommended • Brackebush, who had done witness' work is for twelve years. He considered . Brackebush a skilful and competent [ X-ray operator. Witness spoke to ; Brackebush on the telephone, in the presence of plaintiff, and told him the ' . condition of Smith's hand, using the . word epithelimotous. Witness next [ saw Smith on July 2. There was no i . sign of a' burn, and the treatment! \ appeared to be satisfactory. Witness . next saw him on January 20, 1921, ' when there was no sign of a burn. Wit- ' I ness saw him almost continually in : I February, and advised him to have 1 j something done for the sore. Smith ' went into hospital for an operation at ! witness' direction. Suspecting some underlying condition, witness changed his treatment. In March, 1921, Smith complained of pain. . Without expressing any dissatisfaction, the patient suddenly ceased visiting the consultingrooms on April 24. When witness last saw the hand there was absolutely no sign of an X-ray burn. Just before Christmas, 1923, witness next heard from Smith, who came to apologise for not having paid witness , fee. The account was still unpaid. Witness considered that Brackebush's treatment was reasonable and beneficial. To Mr. Singer: Brackebush was the oldest radiologist in Auckland. Witness had never undertaken to supervise anyone's X-ray treatment—certainly not Smith's treatment. Smith never at any time complained to witness about the treatment. (Proceeding.) ===== I