PATIENT SUES DOCTOR

Manawatu Times, Volume 64, Issue 109, 11 May 1939, Page 10

PATIENT SUES DOCTOR

Allegations of Negligence Denied

HILL CLIMBING AS LUMBAGO CURE In the Palmerston North Supreme Court yesterday, Sir Hubert Ostler and a jury of 12 were engaged hearing a claim for damages by a railway clerk named William James Barrett, of Wellington, formerly of Palmerston North, against Dr. William Hunter Will, of Palmerston North, the allegation being negligent and unskilful treatment. General damages sought . were £SOO and special damages £162 2s 2d. In his statement of claim plaintiff said that in August, 1938, he asked Dr. Will to treat him for piles. On August 8 ho went into hospital and Dr. Will attempted to administer a spinal anaesthetic by inserting an instrument into his back. This was tried for about half an hour without result and Dr. Will hud to send for another medical man, who gave him the usual anaesthetic. Plaintiff further alleged that ou -September 4 when suffering from an injury or affection of his lumbar spine, he was subjected by Dr. Will to violent physical exertion and urged to take strenuous physical exercise such as hill climbing. Plaintiff alleged that in attempting to administer the spinal anaesthetic Dr. Will had caused injury to his back so that he was unable to walk without assistance and had suffered an injury or affection to his lumbar spine, enduring much pain and suffering. Further, as a result of the violent physical exerciso and advice to take strenuous exer.ciso at tho timo when he. was suffering from this injury, his ill-health was prolonged and his recovery delayed. He had been unable to follow his occupation from August 14 to November 19 and had to undergo a course of physiotherapeutic treatment. Tho special damages of £162 2s 2d comprised £BO 3s medical and hospital expenses, £33 15s travelling expenses and board, £4B 4s 2d loss of earnings. Mr. G. C. Watson (Wellington) with Mr. G. I. McGregor (Palmerston North) appeared as counsel for defendant, while Mr. A. M. Ongley (Palmerston North) conducted plaintiff's case. The jury chosen comprised Messrs F. E. Coutts (foreman), M. E. McCool, E. C. Johansen, J. McPherson, W. Alexander, R. Norris, B. Holden, M. J. McShane, W. P. Olsen, W. J. Parris, W. N. Oliver and C. G. Southgate.

In his evidence Barrett detailed the procedure in the operating theatre as he experienced it. He said he told the doctor the needle was hurting badly. The Jain was right down to his toes. Finally Dr. Will gave up the attempt to use a spinal anaesthetic and told the nurse to telephone for Dr. Williams who arrived and offered to try and insert the needle. Dr. Will, however, said witness had had enough and an ordinary anaesthetic was given him. Three days later a pain developed in his back where the needle had been inserted. Hot water bottles were applied to the locality. While attempting to get into a bath he had fainted as a result of the pain in his back. Ou his return home the pains in tho back continued and even got worse. Dr. Will was sent for, said he had a touch of lumbago, and declared strenuous exercise was tho only cure. The doctor worked him backwards and forwards in bed with the result that he screamed with pain. The doctor then punched him iu the small of the back with both fists. The next step was to put him on tho floor, the doctor telling him to imagine he (Dr. Will) was Lofty Blomlield. Defendant then proceeded to force witness' head down and tried "to push his legs back over his head. ’ ’ Barrett said he submitted to the pain because he believed the treatment would do him good eventually. Dr. Will then said witness' son was to carry on with the treatment, which was done morning and evening. The doctor suggested hill climbing, which witness carried out, but not without pain. The next step was to try out hill climbing in the Weber district but tho pain got worse and he returned home. He consulted Dr. Wylie who prescribed diathermy and light massage. With four weeks of that treatment he was able to return to work.

* To Mr. Watson, plaintiff denied that J ho had burst into tears while his back was being swabbed prior to any needle being used; nor had ho sobbed whenever one of the nurses came with an enema. It would bo pure imagination if Dr. Will had said witness' nerves were so bad and that he was in such a state of terror, that the doctor had asked if he would rather have a general anaesthetic. Dr. Will had said he was a wonderful patient. Witness denied that he had told Dr. Will he could not bear to have a spinal anaesthetic and see what was going on. Except for a "without prejudice" letter sent to Dr. Will by Mr. Ongley, witness said he had not complained to Dr. Will about wrong treatment until the writ was issued; nor had ho complained to the hospital matron or nurses. He could not account for the fact that the hospital records revealed nothing about his complaining about his back though all his other complaints wero recorded. When his son continued the treatment the latter was a bit more humane; the doctor had been "very rough indeed." Plaintiff admitted that ho had made no effort to check up from the hospital records as to whether there had been a spinal anaesthetic attempted or not. Dr. D. S. Wylio said that when Barrett first came to him on October 19 he complained of a dull pain in the midline of his back, which was intensified by coughing and sneezing but eased by walking. With the dull pain had been occasional attacks of violent pain which would occur once or twice a week and make him cry out. However, plaintiff had said he could walk any reasonable distance but his back ached all the time. Dr. Wylio said he examined Barrett's spine and found a spot of marked tenderness. Plaintiff’s movements were cautious. Witness advised an X-ray examination but wio changes iu the spine could bo noted from the plates. Witness concluded Barrett was suffering from one of the varieties of backache for which there wero many causes. Diathermic treatment was given to relieve, the pain so that Barrett could get massage and be given light exercises. By

November 12 plaintiff was considerably improved and by November 24 he only had a jittle backache after standing up to a hard day's work. There was no reason why a spinal anaesthetic should not have been successful. Sometimes untoward things followed the use of spinal anaesthesia and for that reason some surgeons were chary about using it. It had its value in certain circumstances. When Barrett first saw him he was not in a position to undertake hill climbing but such exercises as he could take would be beneficial. It was possible that the continuous use of a needle so that it impinged on tho spine, could cause the condition Barrett complained of and to so use a needle persistently would be unskilful treatment. To Mr. Watson, witness declared that the causes of lumbago were infinite in number and the complaint was often brought about in unusual ways. It might be caused, in such circumstances as Barrett was in, by being left on the operating table for a length of time in a strange position. However, it was possible that plaintiff’s lumbago had nothing to do with the treatment he received in hospital. Dr. Wylio said plaintiff's story of the attempt at spinal anaesthesia was quite incredible; it was quite inconsistent with the recognised technique. Witness said he could not express an opinion as to whether Dr. Will's treatment of Barrett's lumbago had been right or not as he did not have the full facts of Barrett's condition at the time. However, some degree of exercise was to be recommended consistent with the patient's condition. He would be surprised ;.o learn no spinal anaesthesea had been attempted but the hospital records would show whether it had or not.

To Mr. Ongley: It was unusual not to proceed with the spinal anaesthesia after having used the hypodermic needle to deaden the locality, but in some cases the patient ’a condition might make it necessary for a change. To his Honour: He had had a fairly long experience of the use of spinal anaesthetics and had never known one to produce lumbago. Mrs. Barrett, wife of plaintiff, described the "rough" treatment Dr. Will had meted out to plaintiff to cure the back pains. Her husband had screamed with the pain during tho Lofty Blomfield acts and the pain in the back got worse. To his Honour, Mrs. Barrett said plaintiff's back gradually got worse during the week following discharge from hospital and before Dr. Will was called in to treat the back. His Honour; Then how can you say the treatment was tho cause of the pains getting worse? They were getting worse of their own accord. Jack C. Barrett, son of plaintiff, recalled hearing from another part of the house, the screams of his father in the bedroom where Dr. Will was manipulating plaintiff's legs and back. Witness was called upon to continue the treatment twice a day and it brought forth screams from the patient. The back did not get better and his father was exhausted after each treatment. Mrs. Irene Thom, of Weber, formerly a nurse, said plaintiff would return exhausted from his walks. She massaged his back every day he was there. She saw a mark of a puncture which she calculated had been made by something larger than a hypodermic needle. She could see he was not progressing and advised him to return to Palmerston North to see his doctor. To Mr. Watson, witness, when shown a hypodermic needle and a spinal needle together, admitted they were about the same in diameter but said the mark of the latter would last longer as it had gone deeper. This concluded plaintiff's case. Mr. Watson asked for a non-suit or verdict for defendant on the ground that Barrett had not discharged the onus of proof as regards either of the acts of alleged negligence. Counsel quoted from the evidence of Dr. Wylie, plaintiff’s own witness, to show that there was nothing in the allegations made by plaintiff.. His Honour thought that there was a case for the jury in respect of the use of the needle and quoted from the evidence of Dr. Wylie , who bad declared | that the continued use of a needle as ' described by plaintiff, might cause a condition inducing lumoago and that a continued use of a needle in such a fashion would be unskilful. As regards the allegation that the treatment for the lumbago had also been unskilful, his Honour said he would reserve decision. He did not feel that this p art of the case was a strong one. .

Defendant, in evidence, described the procedure for a spinal anaesthetic. Barrett's back was first sponged with iodine and then a hypodermic needle was used to deaden the pain for the introduction of the spinal needle. After they hypodermic needle had been used, Barrett commenced to sob. Witness asked him what was wrong and Barrett said he did not feel well. Plaintiff was pale and witness asked him if he would like to lie down. This was done and the head of the operating table lowered. Witness then asked Barrett if he would rather not have tho spinal anaesthetic and the reply was he would rather "go to sleep." No attempt was made to use tho spinal anaesthetic. Dr. Williams was telephoned for. It was quite untrue that Dr. Williams had offered to carry out tho spinal anaesthesia. Nor had witness asked Dr. Williams to try. All he had told Dr. Williams was that Barrett's nerve had collapsed when the hypodermic was used. A gas anaesthetic was then used and the operation proceeded with. It was only natural for plaintiff to complain of a pain in the lower part of his back, since he had had piles removed. There had been no complaint of lumbago pains while plaintiff was in hospital. Barrett had not complained of unskilful treatment either with the spinal needle or with the lumbago. The first witness knew of it was when a letter came to hand from Mr. Ongley. Witness described plaintiff as a man ‘ 1 who took life pretty hard.' ’ It was partly Barrett's own wish that he stayed iu hospital longer. As far as the operation was concerned, lie could have gone home sooner. The lumbago Barrett complained of later when convalescing at home, was of a mild type. Tho manipulation of the back and legs had been to discover how much pain plaintiff was actually suffering. There had been no 1 ‘rough” handling as described by Barrett nor could he recall having made reference to Lofty Blom-

field. There had been no instruction for tho son to continue the leg and back movements. What had been prescribed was a little exercise and hot baths though it was explained to him that in the acute stages rest was essential but should not be continued indefinitely. Barrett had also been told some doctors advocated hill climbing but witness would not recommend lt. To Mr. Ongley, Dr. Will said it was very seldom patients complained of a sore back following the use of a spinal needle. Had plaintiff screamed when his legs and back were moved tho process would not have been continued as nobody wanted to see a man in continual pain. Dr. C. S. Williams said he could not recall the details of the Barrett case. All ho knew was that his showed he had been called in to administer the anaesthetic. It would have been a stupid action on his part, however, to have suggested trying tho spinal anaesthetic for Dr. Will had tl latter failed. At this stage the Court adjourned till this morning.

GREAT NORTHERN MEETING WEIGHTS DECLARED AUCKLAND, Last Night. The following are the weights for the Auckland Racing Club’s Great Northern Steeplechase meeting, to be held on June 3, 5 and 7: —

HAWKE’S BAY WINTER MEETING The Hawke’s Bay Jockey Club's winter meeting will again be held on two Saturdays, June 10 and 17, and the stakes offered are the same as last year, totalling £2075 for the 14 races. A SYSTEM Mr. Joseph P. Kennedy, the American Ambassador, told the London Press Club after the race for this year's Grand National Steeplechase of a method he uses for "furnishing the nutrition" of the Kennedy family. "It is," he said, "to send my son to the Grand National. We have a system. The first year we bet on an American horse, because we are Americans first. The second year we bet on an Irish horse, because we are Irish-Americans. It is a great system. Last year the American horse won. This year the Irish horse won."

GREAT NORTHERN HURDLES. of £1500: 24 miles. Erination 11 11 I lines Lad 9 2 Silver Sight 11 2 Hopalong 9 0 Esteem 11 Pyrenees 9 0 Red Sun 10 12 Agog 9 0 All Irish 10 10 Master Musk 9 0 Charade 10 Gadger 9 Stansted 10 5 Gascyne 9 0 Electric Spear 10 King Rod 9 0 Windsor Rad 10 4 Adsum 9 0 Mio Lurau 10 1 Tutor 0 En Tour 10 1 Chikara .9 0 John Charles 10 Cappy 9 0 Bryce Street 9 12 Smilin’ Thru 9 0 Sporting Song 9 10 Count Simint 9 10 Roussillion 9 0 Royal Dance 9 9 Conveyor 9 0 Celtic Lad 9 6 St. Musk 9 0 Don Erma 9 2 Kinkle 9 0 Lady England 9 2 Baldric 9 0 GREAT NORTHERN STEEPLECHASE. of £1750 about 31 miles. Erination 11 13 Smilin’ Thru 9 0 All Irish 10 12 Allegretto 9 0 Stansted 10 12 Pyrenees 9 0 Silver Sight 10 12 Count Valpeen 10 8 Roussillion 9 0 San toft 10 6 Baldric 9 0 Hanover 10 5 Car Leaf 9 0 Red Sun 10 5 Survey 9 0 Sky Pilot 10 0 9 0 Mio Lume 10 0 9 0 En Tour 10 0 London 9 0 John Charles 10 0 Race Whip 9 0 Black Marlin 10 0 King Rod 9 0 Don Erma 10 0 Adsum 9 0 Bryce Street 10 0 Electric Flash 9 0 Sporting Song 9 5 Bells of Bow 9 0 Simint 9 5 Roxy 9 0 Irish Comet 9 5 Kinkle 9 0 Power Chief 9 3 CORNWALL HANDICAP, of £600: 11 miles. Round Up 10 3 Black Musk 7 1 Catalogue 9 Du Maurier 7 1 Golden Sheila 8 13 Dark Shadow 7 0 Valamito 8 12 Silvan us 7 0 King Rey 8 9 Gay Rebel 7 0 Cheval de High Tea 7 0 Volee 8 5 Jewelled Gold Vaals 8 5 Girdle 7 0 Sly Fox 8 5 Ivy Willonyx 7 0 Balinavar 8 Siega 7 0 Galilee 8 1 Lord Master Brierly 8 0 Cavendish 7 0 Royal Miss Appellant 7 0 Appellant 8 0 El Meynell 7 0 Tooley Street 7 u Tybalt 7 0 Enge 7 10 High Sea 7 0 Te Hai 7 8 Inver 7 0 Jonathan 7 6 Barrister 7 0 Royevrus 7 6 Calorie 7 0 De Friend 7 5 General Ruse 7 0 Tidewaiter 7 5 Prince Colossus 7 0 Brazilian 7 4 Poland 7 0 Jack Tar 7 2 The Cardinal 7 0 Philcourt 7 2 King Theo 7 0 Gay Rose 7 2 Inquisitor 7 0 Valmint 7 1 Bon Star 7 0 Notium 7 1