CLAIM AGAINST DOCTOR

Hawera Star, Volume L, 13 February 1931, Page 9

CLAIM AGAINST DOCTOR

TREAT.M ENT OF BROK EN ARM • PARENT'S ACTION FAILS. (By Telegraph—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Feb. 13. A claim for damages in an action an wliich a, bov who had been a patient in the Wellington Hospital anc the doctor who attended him were plaintiff and defendant, respectively was disalI owe tel by Hr. F. Rage, S.M., who delivered his reserved judgment m ttie Magistrate’s Court. Reviewing the ease the magistrate said that plaintiff, -Malcolm Richardson, a boy aged six, was admitted toi hospital suffering from a green stick tract tire of both bones of the right forearm. The fracture was reduced and the arm set by defendant, Or. NY 11linm Bracewell Mercer, of Dunedin, who was then house surgeon at the K’spitn 1 The broken bones sutuseinentlv knitted in perfect position and made a gooti, complete recovery, but complication by way of contraction ol some muscles of the forearm early developed and this entailed medical attention and a substantial period ol massage treatment. Plaintiff and bis father and mother now iointlv brought an action claiming to recover from defendant £2OO foi damages, it being claimed that the con idition" of the boy’s arm brought aboin by negligence and unskilfillness on tin jart of defendant. _ . . Continuing, the magistrate said tliai there was ample authority approving ,f the tvpe of splint used, though r i Vi i.s also' true that other equally omi nelit authors disapproved it. An ini ".ortaut question in the ease seemei to he whether, having adopted tin vne of splint, defendant took adequate f :.,in the. subsequent treatment o the bov The weight of evidetnee a) neared to be that, in view of the satis factory condition of the arm, defend ant was justified in allowing the ho; ■I he taken home on tins day followin he setting of the limb. Defendan ,'vas described hv medical witnesses o i, s j,les as one of the host hous surgeons the hospital had had, an was" careful, attentive and thorougl If,, had come to the conclusion thn negligence on the part of defender •>s not proved and the claim mu;

1 judgment was entered for the doctor with costs.