DECISION RESERVED

Grey River Argus, 21 June 1944, Page 2

DECISION RESERVED

CHARGES AGAINST DOCTOR AND SON.

PA AUCKLAND, June 19. The adjourned hearing of nine prosecutions against a medical practitioner, Philip Richard Cross, ana two against his son, Philip Eustace Cross, a medical student, alleging breaches of the Social Security Act, was concluded before Mr. F. H. ■- vien, S.M., to-day. It was alleged that between September, 1942, and July, 1943, Dr. Cross had. misled an officei concerned in the administration oi the Social Security Act for the purpose of obtaining payment from the Social Security Fund in respect oi 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 given was half the payment claimed. The total amount involved in the first six charges was £5 7s 6d, and in the other three £2 5s was claimed for instead. of £1 2s 6d. The information against Cross, junior, alleged that he had, on two occasions, wrongfully signed a medical prescription with the name of a registered medical practitioner, and bad thereby misled a chemist and an officer of the department for the purpose of obtaining benefits under the Social Security Act. They pleaded not guilty. Continuing his opening remarks for the defence, Mr. I. J. Goldstine submitted that medical services were rendered in the case of a child suffering from measles. As a result of a telephone call, Dr. Cross told his son rhat he suspected that the child bad measles, and if that was found correct when the child was brought to the surgery, to give the parents a certain prescription Cross, junr., saw the child, and wrote out the prescription directed by his father. This prescription was the subject of one of the charges against Cross, junr. In the case where two visits were claimed for instead of one, a mistake was admitted, said Mr. Goldstine. A visit by a patient was entered on a benefit form but as Dr. Cross was unwell, she was seen by Cross junr., and told to return. The first visit was mistakenly left on the form when the second Visit was claimed for. Regarding the second charge against Cross junr., the prescription was again written by the son on the father’s instructions. In respect of both charges, they were the doctor’s prescriptions, written out by his son as a doctor’s agent. Evidence along the lines indicated by Mr Goldstine was given by Cross, junr. The statement of a previous witness that she had been examined bv him was incorrect, said defendant. She had been examined bv his father. Decision was reserved.