HOSPITAL BOARD SUED

Press, Volume LXXIV, Issue 22419, 4 June 1938, Page 13

HOSPITAL BOARD SUED

ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE IN OPERATION DOCTOR’S STORY OF SWAB IN BODY EVIDENCE QUESTIONED BY DEFENCE (press association telegram.' AUCKLAND, June 3. The hearing of a claim for £I6OO general and £213 special damages against the Auckland Hospital Board, based on allegations of negligent and unskilful treatment, was continued before his Honour Mr Justice Callan and a jury of 11 in the Supreme Court. The claim was brought by Mrs Mary Margaret Barry, aged 32, of St. Heliers (Mr Sullivan and Mr Winter), who said that she had been a patient of the Auckland Hospital from January 10, 1937, to October 19, 1937. The plaintiff was operated on on January 11 and April 11, and she claimed that during one of these operations a swab or other foreign body had been left in her abdomen. This was so> concealed that the cause of her resulting injuries was not known to her until after an operation in a private hospital on November 27. Mr V. R. Meredith and Mr McCarthy, for the Hospital Board, denied all allegations of negligence and added the further defence that the plaintiff had not begun her action within six months, as required. Dr. J. W. Bridgeman, continuing his evidence, said that during his operation on Mrs Barry at the Mater Miseracordiae Hospital, extra assistance had to be called because of her grave condition. She was given an intravenous saline injection. He removed a thick-walled cyst about the size of a lemon as the last part of the operation. On examination, he found a small swab of gauze, 2i inches long by 1J inches or li inches wide, loosely adhering to the inner wall of the cyst. The appearance of the part of the X-ray plate explained by the witness was stated by him to be consistent with its showing the presence of a swab. “It was a Swab” “My own view after having handled the swab,” said the witness, “was that it was a swab.” In answer to Mr Meredith, the witness said he had been six years in New Zealand. He had been at the Wallace and Grey River Hospitals and had been referee for an insurance society. The bacteriologist’s report did not give any evidence that Mrs Barry .was sufferihg from bacterial peritonitis. Nurse Yates was present, the witness said, when a thread came out from Mrs Barry’s wound. The nurse said she thought it was a thread, but the witness said he thought it was not. He said that as the patient already had ideas of there being a swab or piece of rubber inside her. “As a matter of fact, I was trying to dodge any trouble that might occur,” said the witness. What happened at the Auckland Hospital was no concern of his, and he decided tc keep “the thread business” to himself He did keep it to himself until Mr Sul; livan got it out of him. He had tolo Dr. Gwynne that he had found a few layers of gauze. The swab was destroyed when his surgery was changed round in December. The witness said he could not produce it now. If he had, Mr Meredith would have been the first to question The witness said that he had said to the anaesthetist before the operation that there might be a swab present. After he found this object, nc discussed its being a swab with Sister Agnes and Dr. Maskell, and if they both denied that, he still said he was stating the truth. Patient Not Informed “Mother Agnes said to me: ‘lt is a swab,’ and she concealed it under a green covering,” said the witness. He had avoided telling the patient that he had found any foreign body. Mr Meredith: Had you no duty to tell her? ' . ~ The witness: No. No duty to the patient. lam not bound to broadcast from the housetops when a foreign body is found in a patient. It appeared to me that Mrs Barry was quite content to be made well again, as she never expected to be. ... Asked why he had left the hospitals in which he had worked, the witness said that he was tired of domg work that should have been done by twice as many people. He had had a row with a nurse at'the Grey Hospital and she claimed that he had assaulted her. There was some tro. ble at Invercargill and the allegation against him was dismissed. He should not have mentioned it. „ ~ . The witness denied that the Magistrate had referred to the Invercargill affair as a “drunken brawl.” In re-examination- by Mr Sullivan, the witness said that two of the ndrses left the operating theatre at the Mater Miseracordiae Hospital shortly after his operation was begun. Mother Mary Agnes was not present when he returned to the theatre to examine the swab. He considered that the treatment of the plaintiff by the responsible authorities of the Mater Miseracordiae Hospital was most unfair. In _ consequence, his relations with that institution were not good, and he refused to go back there. Consequently the report of Inis on the operation was not completed. “No Pecuniary Interest” “I have absolutely no pecuniary interest in this case, and I am here much against my will,” said the witness. He said he had received a total of £64 from Mrs Barry, and she owed him nothing. . ~ „ , . Dr. W. H. Horton said that he concluded that at the time the plaintiff went into the Mater Miseracordiae Hospital she was a patient whose illness had begun with a very acute abdominal ailment. At the time he saw her he ■concluded that she had had a foreign body in her abdomen, and he was strengthened in that conclusion by what he had heard in .Court. In cross-examination, the witness said that if an enterostomy had been done on the plaintiff—that was one of the most difficult, worrying, and arduous operations a doctor had to perform —it would indicate that the patient was then in a very grave condition. On the evidence he had heard, he felt certain that if it was not a swab, at least some foreign body was removed. Opening the defence, Mr Meredith said that it was that there never was a swab in Mrs Barry. “We are going the whole hog,” continued Mr Meredith; “and we say that when Dri Bridgeman says he found the swab he is not telling the truth. There is no half-way house.” Mr Meredith proceeded to outline the history of Mrs Barry’s illness, and her treatment, first at the Auckland Hospital and later at the Mater Miseracordiae Hospital, where she went instead of returning to the Auckland Hospital. The case depended on how much reliance they were going tc place, on Dr. Bridgeman, who would be found to be in conflict with many reputable practitioners. Mother Mary Agnes herself went into the operation because of rumours abdul a foreign body that had been started by Dr. Bridgeman, continued Mr Mere' dith, and she would give evidence for the defence. She would be supported by others present at the operation, who saw nothing of the swab. The hearing was adjourned till Tuesday. .