TREATMENT OF LEG

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 127, 1 June 1938, Page 6

TREATMENT OF LEG

CLAIM AGAINST DOCTOR

NEGLIGENCE ALLEGED

(Special to the "Evening Post.")

PALMERSTON N., This Day.

[ Allegations that he had failed to i exercise that standard of care which [members of the medical profession owed their-patients, were made in the Supreme Court yesterday during the hearing of a claim for damages bnought against Dr. Kenrich Dean, of Palmerston North, by Mrs. Olive Rita Paterson, of Palmerston North, dressmaker. The amount of general damages claimed was £750 and special damages £172 6s.

Counsel for the plaintiff (Mr. L. G. H. Sinclair) said that on November 24, 1936, Mrs. Paterson fell from the pillion seat of a motor-cycle and injured her knee so that it remained bent and she was unable to straighten it. Dr. Dean was called in and he advised hot packs every two hours and iodine paintings. There was no improvement, and four weeks later Dr. King was called in to manipulate the limb in an endeavour to straighten it. Dr. King had not wanted to proceed before an X-ray examination had been made, but Dr. Dean had told him to go ahead. The limb was kept in splints for a week, and therv Dr. Dean prescribed daily hot baths of three hours' duration with instructions to try and move the limb by pressing the foot against the bottom of the bath and working the leg up and down. This had resulted in the knee swelling. Mrs. Paterson was far from satisfied and asked for an X-ray examination, which was made and a small portion of bone was found to be fractured. She was sent to hospital under the care of another doctor for treatment, and after that she consulted Dr. Williams, who conducted an operation, which resulted in considerable improvement to the knee.

The allegations were that Dr. Dean negligently failed to diagnose the nature of the injury, negligently treated it by improper, incorrect, and ineffective methods, and allegedly continued such improper treatment when he knew or ought to have known that the treatment was not appropriate in the circumstances.

The Court adjourned at the conclusion of the plaintiff's case.