DOCTOR AND SON CHARGED

Press, Volume LXXX, Issue 24280, 10 June 1944, Page 6

DOCTOR AND SON CHARGED

SOCIAL SECURITY BREACHES ALLEGED (P.A;) AUCKLAND, June 9. The first -case of a medical practitioner being prosecuted for alleged' infringements of the Social Security Act was commenced to-day when nine informations were brought against Philip Richard Cross, medical practitioner, of Auckland, before Mr F. H. Levien, S.M. Two further information* were laid against a medical student, Philip Eustace Cross, son of Dr. Cross, of Remuera. The prosecution was brought by the Health Department, for which Mr S. Cleal appeared, and both defendants, who entered pleas of not guilty, were represented by Mr I. J. Goldstine. Because of illness Dr. Cross did not appear. It was alleged that between September. 1942, and July, 1943, Dr. Cross had misled an officer concerned in the administration of the Social Security Act for the purpose of obtaining payment from the Social Security Fund in respect of medical services rendered. In six cases It was alleged that no medical services were rendered, and In the remaining three that the value of the services rendered was half the payment claimed. The total amount involved in the first six instances was £5 7s 6d and in the other three it was alleged £2 5s was claimed for instead of £1 2s 6d. The informations against Cross, jun., alleged that he had on two occasions wrongfully signed a medical prescription .with the name of a registered medical practitioner and had thereby misled a chemist and an officer of thfe department for the purpose of obtaining benefits under the Social Security Act. Philip Richard Cress was locum tenens for Dr. Thompson while the latter was in the Army, said Mr deal. He was assisted by his son, who acted as secretary and driver. Cross, jun., who had some medical knowledge, was alleged to have frequently attended patients at their homes and in the surgery and he was fortunate that there were not more serious charges. In five of the six cases where it was alleged no medical services were rendered It was contended that attention had been given to patients, by Cross junior. In the other case, where a claim for £2 12s 6d was made for infrared ray treatment, it was alleged that the treatment had been carried out by Mrs Cross, sen., on the recommendation of Cross, jun. Even if the treatment had been ordered by Dr. Cross no claim could be made under the act, said Mr deal. Evidence would show that Cross junior attended two children on one occasion and that Dr. Cross was present on the second visit. A claim for 15s was made for each visit, instead of 7s 6d. After evidence had been heard, Mr Goldstine said Dr. Cross was 72 years of age. His son had spent three and a half years as a medical student in England and was now 38 years of age. He helped his father as nurse and driver. Dealing with each of the informations in turn, counsel said in one case all that Cross junior had done would normally have been done by a nurse. There was nothing in the act to say that it did not therefore constitute a visit. One mistake was admitted where a claim for £1 5s was entered against the wrong patient's name.

In visiting two children, Mr Goldstine submitted. Dr. Cross was entitled to claim 15s, as there were two patients. After the visit the father had called for a, certificate which Cross junior gave on his father’s instructions. The doctor was entitled to claim payment for that service. There was nothing in the act to show that Dr. Cross was not entitled to payment - for the ray treatment given, continued counsel. Even if the treatment were administered by Mrs Cross, Dr. Cross was responsible for it. Mr Golds'tine had not completed his’cpening when the Court adjourned. The date of continuation was not fixed.