VERDICT FOR £85O DAMAGES

Dominion, Volume 14, Issue 232, 25 June 1921, Page 8

VERDICT FOR £85O DAMAGES

AGAINST G. L FULTON

BOTH SIDES ASK FOR JUDGMENT

HUSKISSON’S HOSPITAL TREATMENT

The special jury in the HuskissonFulton case yesterday returned a verdict of .£B5O damages for the plaintiff. Plaintiff is the widow of William Huskisson, painter, of Petone, who died after a collision on the Hutt Road between a gig that he was occupying ami a motor-ear that the defendant, Guy Leslie Fulton, was driving. Mr. Justice Sim was on the bench. Mr. H. F. O’Leary appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. A. Gray, K.C., with him Mr. D. B. Hoggard, for the defendant. Mr. W. Fuller was foreman of the jury. Evidence for the defendant, was given by Dr. H. C. Faulke. medical practitioner. He said that he was an experienced surgeon and anaesthetist. Mr. Hoggard conducted the examination in chief.

Counsel: It is an objectionable practice, is it not, to change the anaesthetist during an operation?

Witness: Yes. Counsel: Does such a course increase the risk to the patient? Witness: Yes. . . . The second anaesthetist would have had no opportunity of seeing how the anaesthetic was first taken, which knowledge is of great advantage. The second anaesthetist is more likely to make a mistake than the first. It is preferable to have the best and most experienced operators. Dr. Faulke added that he had never known of an experienced anaesthetist being at the Wellington Hospital. Counsel then produced “Haliburton’s Physiology," from which witness quoted a passage relative to low temperature. Witness was then shown Huskisson’s chart, describing Huskisson’s temperature variation. Haliburton had defined limits of daily temperature as: Maximum, 99.5 deg.; minimum, 97.6 deg. The minimum temperature was usually reached about 3 a.m. The fact that tho hospital temperature was not taken until 8 a.m went to show that the patient’s lowest temperature had not been recorded, said witness. Huskisson’s temperature, as recorded on the chart, subsequent to October 4, never reached the normal line. On October 13 and October 21, evening temperature nearly reached normal. From October 4 until the patient’s death his temperature was sub-normal, with an evening rise and a morning depression throughout. On the night of November 1, evening, the temperature was 97 deg.; but ou several days the temperature had not been recorded. The chart did not provide for the recording of any temperature below 96 deg., and for more than a fortnight. Huskisson’s temperature was 96 deg. , , „ "Persistently Sub-normal.

“Was there anything remarkable about the chart?” asked counsel. "I don’t remember over having seen a record of temperature so persistently subnormal,” said witness. Counsel: Would such a temperature lead to investigations as to disease? Witness: I would try to find cut the cause. That is the course that should be adopted. , . Counsel: What would the sub-normal-ity of the temperature suggest? Witness: Chronic nephritis (Brights disease), tuberculosis, or other dieses. Counsel: Could a man have Brights disease without knowing it. . Witness: Ves. . Without impairing his menial powers. Counsel: In advanced stage. Witness: Hardly, but the condition might go on for a number of years. Liit patient generally lias some inconvenience, but doesn’t know what is wrong with him. The disease "granular kidneys is incurable. ~ ~ , . . Continuing, witness said that statements made 'by Keen on “Surgery mentioned nephritis as a cause of delayed union . • • Quayne stated that also. Witness added that in his opinion a further investigation should have beer, made before the major operation was performed *• Counsel: Would yon have operated? Witness: Not knowing the circumstances of the case. It is not a ways that the hospital surgeon knows the lustory of a case, not having liis attention called to the patient’s temperature. Value of Splints. kt this stage witness called attention to the bowel condition of the. deceased Huskisson, quoting from the records that days had elapsed before action. He complained that means of relieving constipation. were employed early in the morning. sometimes nt 2 o’clock, which was not right, in view of the fact that, waking the mtient was harmful, as was the disturbing of the rest of the ward From the X-ray plates, witness said he would describe Huskisson’s fracture as transverse. The "one inch shortening spoken of wasWbe result, of muscular contraction, and the means to prevent ovc iInnping were extension, which vas a pM? on the lower fragment, by steady keans, to be consistently momtaineffi Witness did not use I horn as s splint used on Huskisson—for fractures of t>m femur. The splint was need as a tiansport” splint, for men being the front line to J-he r .< " 'T* thought that the treatment of Huskis son's leg in the hospital wns not in accordance with "Jones” instructions. The Judge: Who is Jones and wh.it ore his instructions Is be a sort ot medical Fope, who issues instructions a.n aver the world? Witness explained that "Jones was Sir Robert Jones, a famous medico, suo„_SßOr io Sir Owen Thomas, inventor ot the Ulnt in question. Huskisson’s case more treatment than the ordinary skie sullnt was necessary • *he s of using a Thomas bed splint for a frae ' fnred thigh was of recent uHness Hiouchi. "Extension was a l"cjs re Sired and, properlj-applled. a Thomas s splint would do what was required. B overlapping occurred, then probably tin andlication was faulty. On Mr. Hoggard’s making refereneo o •everal resettings which toos place on the dt-cearfO! and to manipulations, witness said he thought, such would have delayed union. A period of eigffit to tnehe days was looked on by cel , taln . ■ fies as a period of delayed union, but one was not able aeWaHv to determine non-union during a period of about four weeks. Witness Mild that such measures as massage treatment and the rubbing of the ends of the bone together by Di. Morice were taken by some

“Opinions Differ.”

Cross-examined by Mr. O’Leary, Dr. Faulke said that he had not taken up tho case until some time after Huskisson’s death, but he had had access to th« Hospital records. Mr. O’Leary commented that ’ one could read sections from an authority roundly condemning any practice." "Opinions differ,’’ said witness. Regarding his statement about anaesthetists, Dr. Faulke said that he did not mean the doctors were not. competent; but meant that they could ”<>l T'n instr, lotion. ... In his own time at tho hospital he had performed many operations and sometimes called tn Dr. Hardwick’Smith to give the anaesthetic. On other occasions he had "gone ahead with the hospital anaesthetist. “If anyone had died during your operations,” said Air. O’Leary, "yon would hare resented a charge of negligence- being triad# against you ?

"No,’’ said witness. "Such an occurrence might have resulted in true facts being brought to light.’’ He had never seen a temperature record like Hnskisson's, alt hough "subnormal to a certain extent” temperatures, ho thought, would be a result, of fracture.

There was =oine argument at this stage on the subject of temperatures, and Mr. O'Leary produced charts of other "fracture” patients whose temperatures wore low. Personally, witness said, he had not had a ease of delayed union since 1917. [Taetures of the lemur were rare; and witness’s experience was in treating them in a colliery practice in England, one place being Manchester Royal. Witness had never had a case of non-union, and hail never had a case of delayed union in a femur fracture. "Only once, with a. tibia.” he added, “but there even tually was union.” Witness explained that the. object of rubbing the broken bones together was to produce the conditions of a fresh fracture after that operation. He maintained that a good anaesthetist was required for an operation on a person whose temperature was sub-nor-mal. He had operated on a person whose temperature was sub-normal within ‘ im ' its—a person with non-union of a fractured humerus. Counsel produced a chart of that person’s temperature, which «as never below 97deg. Witness did not know of any objection against ‘ extension by weights.” , , Counsel: Bo you suggest Lanes I lacing” is obsolete." T Witness: No. . . . Methods change. I used a Lane’s plate about 10 J ears ; af ?°’ and the last time, in 191 G on A tibia. The latter ease was one in un 'vo gave way. and required Platinfrears after the limb had been set n Cpital. . • • "The old 'Lane's plating i 8 obsolete," added Dr. Faulke. He had no modern plates in his eld plates, he thcmgnt, could be used under special conditions. “Disagreement With Authorities.”

Continuing, witness ka-id ThZ always a soft substance between the fractured ends of two bones. opeiation to remove this tissue, accordin„ most authorities, should not take place for some months after the fracture. W tness had been on the honorary surgeons’ staff of the Wellington Hospital for 15 or 16 years continuously P “You had a disagreement with the Hospital authorities,” said counsel. ”1 couldn’t get my reforms there Baid the witness. "For fifteen y<mrs I attempted to obtain reforms. Ini the end, I criticised too vigorously, and at the next biennial elections I was not el " This case, then, gives you ful'^’®l- - to criticise?” asked Mr. it a public duty to criticise, witness said. He admitted having made mistakes in some of h ls operations. Witness admitted that Dr. Morice s 3. visits io Huskisson in 53 days were exceptional. He himself had been in the habit of attending patients six times> week. Although he remembered haxrng, in his examination in chief, called t house surgeons "inexperienced, he did not infer negligence British "You are not n member of the Bi tibh Medical Association.? 0 asked counsel. "No, 0 replied witness. In re-examination Dr. Faulke reiterated that in his opinion the treatment of Huskisson’s case had been owing to insufficient experience on the part of the bouse surgeons. At the conclusion of the «-exnnnnafion. which ended the ca3e 10 fence, application was made by M • O’Learv for permission io call Mis. M liott and Morice (the latter being a winces for the plaintiff) >n rebut k Hm Honour refused the keC evb not been one word in Di. J •.< denee ” he commented, "alleging negllSnce’agXt Dr. Morice or aga.nst anyone." ~ .. . The Verdict.

Counsels’ addresses oceupieil most of the afternoon; and after .? b * summed up the jury retired at . .3 p.m. Six issues were placed befoie the jury. Thsy and tho answers returned ueie Was the defendant negligent in conneotion with the collision _ (a) by driving ,at an excessively high, speed?—Yes. (b) By not keeping a proper look(2) gig properly lighted at the time of the collision ?—No. (3) Was the collision between defendant's motor-car and Crofts gig caused— „ (a.) by defendant's negligence?—Yes. fb) by reason of tho gig not being properly lighted? Yes. (4) Tf the defendant was negligent, was the death of William Huskisson the natural and probable result of the defendant's negligence?—Yes. (5) Was the death of William Huskisson caused by negligent treatment in flra Wellington Hospital?—No. (6) What damages (if any) is the plaintiff entitled to recover? Tf she is entitled to recover damages, in what shares nra the damages to be divided among the wido v an.l Lee two children? — Plaintiff should re-over .£B5O. to be apportioned ns foD'"--. Widow. .£360; one daughter, .£2OOl roungor dawrhier, £350.

When the verdict was delivered (at 9.15 p.m.), counsel for plaintiff asked for judgment, and immediately afterwards counsel for defendant did the , same. Local argument as io the entering of judgment will be heard at a later date.