HOSPITAL FEES CLAIMED

Press, Volume LXXV, Issue 22696, 28 April 1939, Page 16

HOSPITAL FEES CLAIMED

METHOD OF ASSESSING CHARGES DEFENCE OF PUBLIC INTEREST PLEADED IN' COURT i j A disputed claim for X-ray fees at ! the Christchurch. Public Hospital, which it was said by counsel was defended on ground of public interest, was begun in the Magistrates Court yes- ! ter day before Mr F. F. Reid, SAL I The plaintiff wa the North Canterbury Hospital Board (Mr M. P. Ealesl I and the defendant, M. E. Lyons, a secI retary, and a member of the City ! Council, who was represented by Mr A. S. Lyons. The facts in the claim, which : were not disputed, were that in August, 11937, X-ray examinations were made ■ of Lyons and Mrs Lyons, at the hosI pitaC at the request of their private ; medical practitioners. The plaintiff sent i Lyons a bill for £4 4s for the two ! examinations. Lyons paid £ I Is, offerj ing this as adequate payment for the I work done, and the. board accepted I this without prejudice. The board now claimed the remaining £3 3s. Mr Bales outlined the statutory aai thority the board had ' for collecting i its fees. Before August, 1934, there < had been no set scale of fees, but a conference of hospital boards- had been ! called, and the hospital board had re- ' commended that the charges put for- ! ward at that conference should be the j charges at the hospital. The charges ! were standard for persons sent along ' by their medical practitioners. ; *A_ T. Dailey, the officer in charge i ■of the department, gave evidence of j ! the procedure adopted in making the | i X-ray charges. To Mr Lyons witness • \ said "that there was much work to be j i done by the radiologist in preparing [ j reports for private practitioners. After j | long cross-questioning about the pro- ; cedure and the scale of charges, Mr I ; Lyons the witness if the board’s f by-laws had Ministerial sanction. Witness said that they had, but was un- 1 ! able to say that the scale of charges j had also been so approved. j I Opening'the case for the defence, Mr j ; Lyons said that the claim was defended i on the ground of public interest, j The Magistrate: You are asking me l to sit in judgment on the North Canterbury Hospital Board. I don’t proi pose to mafe-p any comment whatever lon that. All I am going to do is dei termine whether the amount claimed | is due or not due. J Other aspects of the case would be j ruled out as irrelevant, continued the j Magistrate. I Defendant, in evidence, said that he ! had written to the Director-General at Health three weeks ago asking if the board's scale of charges had Ministerial sanction. So far there had been no reply. He knew of acquaintances who had been only charged 10s 6d for similar examinations. Hie Magistrate, to further statements by Mr A. S. Lyons, said that the onus of proving whether the scale of charges haH Ministerial sanction lay in this case with the defence. On Mr Lyons’s application the case was adjourned for a fortnight, in or- i der that the defence might receive a reply from the Director-General of HeaMn__^_