Woman Seeks Leave To Sue Nelson Hospital

Press, Volume CII, Issue 30172, 2 July 1963, Page 14

Woman Seeks Leave To Sue Nelson Hospital

(New Zealand Press Association) WELLINGTON, July 1. If leave were granted to commence an action for damages against the Nelson Hospital Board, it would be suggested that a patient, for the purposes of a particular operation should have been referred to a better-equipped centre, Mr R. G. Collins said today in the Supreme Court, at Wellington. He appeared for Doreen Bower Giblin, married, of Richmond, in a notice of motion for leave to commence an action out of time against the board. Mr Justice McGregor reserved his decision.

Mrs Giblin, in a draft statement of claim which was before the Court, said that in August, 1960, she • received surgical treatment at Nelson Hospital with the object of relieving discomfort in her left hand.

She alleged that as a result ot the treatment her left hand and arm were paralysed for “a lengthy period,” and remained grossly disabled due to damage caused during the treatment to the nerves. She claimed general damages of £BOOO Mr Collins said it was contended on behalf of Mrs Giblt» that there was reasonable ca.se for the failure to give formal notice of the action and for the delay, and, alternatively, that the Hospital Board had not been materially prejudiced. Submitting that the case was “most unusual,” he said Mrs Giblin had received medical treatment continually

since the operation. With the exception of an operation performed earlier this year, the medical treatment had been arranged and paid for by the Nelson Hospital Board. No advice was given to Mrs Giblin by any of the board’s doctors or servants that there was anything wrong or unusual about the result of her

operation in 1960. There had been a gradual realisation by Mrs Giblin that all was not well.

“In July, 1962. she was referred by the Nelson Hospital Board for a consultation to a Dr. Saunders in Wellington On that occasion Mrs Giblin consulted a firm of Wellington solicitors,” said Mr Collins.

In a letter to the Hospital Board the solicitors acknowledged that any claim by Mrs Giblin would be out of time but asked for hospital notes The notes were supplied. The solicitors were not able to give “any kind of real notice” till they had access to information from the hospital notes and medical advice

A leading Auckland neurosurgeon had advised that an exploratory operation was essential to determine what had occurred at the original operation in Nelson Hospital The explorative operation had taken place last February

Mr Collins said that if leave were granted for the action to commence against the Hospital Board, ft would be suggested that for the purposes of the operation in August 1960. Mrs Giblin should have been referred to a betterequipped centre Mr Justice McGregor: 1 think Nelson would refute that very strongly. Mr Collins: It has proved to be a very intricate operation and that, no doubt, will be greatly in issue

For the Hospital Board. Mr J. T. Eichelbaum submitted there was nothing in the evidence to show that Mrs Giblin was treated any differently from any other patient of the board who might have gone to the board for treatment. The board had a duty to treat her and a duty to continue the treatment till

either a cure was effected or nothing further could be done for her, ne said that for 33 months

after Mrs Giblin’s operation the board was left in ignorance of the precise allegations made against it. When the allegations were finally formulated, it was found five distinct matters were alleged, none of which had been specifically referred to in correspondence, and some of which were never hinted at. It was submitted that only two of the five grounds related to the operation itself.