Hospital Fees

Dominion, Volume 24, Issue 52, 25 November 1930, Page 11

Hospital Fees

Sir, —The precedent set by Mr. Justice Reed is no doubt extremely satisfactory to hospital boards, but it has given rise to some criticism that should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. In your issue of to-day’s date, Mr. A. J. McCurdy is reported as saying : "Until now we have not been able to obtain amounts awarded by the Court and juries specifically for hospital expenses.” If these words were used by him they do not represent a fair commentary on the position. lam not able to speak as to what prevails elsewhere, but here the practice of those legal firms engaged in accident and compensation work has been to see that the hospital is protected to the amount of its fees. Upon the settlement of actions arising from personal , injuries, whether finality is reached by private agreement or judicial decision, a number of local firms have in the past acted as collecting agents for the board, and have neither received nor sought any remuneration for so doing. „ Any discussion that does not recognise the essential difference between negligence and compensation cases can only lend to confusion. The former are illustrated by claims for damages through injury caused by some motor vehicle, the latter by accidents to workers during, und within the 'scope of, their employment. In the one, the plaintiff upon establishing his right to a verdict, is entitled to receive, and does receive, such special loss as hospital and medical fees; in the other, the plaintiff obtains compensation, not for bis past loss, but for his future disability, the Workers’ Compensation Act restricting the sum recoverable for medical expenses to one pound. i jured worker who spends a length} period as an inmate or an a hospital might conceivably find that the obligation of paying his hosP l^. l . ,^P e " s _ e ® in a lump sum left him with litt'e or n reserve for his and his family s futu Of OB D lhe'other hnud. of tim of locomotive negligence who, being given unpaid hospital lees, leaves them un raid and appropriates them to his own use is as Mr. Justice Reed points out, fradulent and dishonest. ’ l ’ he . ,nf ”®”nt to be drawn from much of the recent criticism of his decision is that such conduct is general rather than the rule rather than the exception. My own experience does not support any such gloomy outlook, and in. common with practitioners engaged in this class of work I have not found any prevalent desire on., the part of clients to prevent moneys due to hospital boards being properly applied. I am, etc., w LBICEST ER. Wellington, November 22.