Doctor Not Negligent

Manawatu Times, Volume 64, Issue 110, 12 May 1939, Page 8

Doctor Not Negligent

JURY'S VERDICT IN PATIENT’S CLAIM No negligence was the verdict of the jury in the Palmerston North Supreme Court yesterday at the conclusion of the case in which William James Barrett, railway clerk, of Wellington, and formerly of Palmerston North, claimed from Dr. William Hunter Will, of Palmerston North, £SOO general and £162 special damages for alleged negligent treatment. Fifteen minutes’ retirement was all that was necessary for the decision. When the hearing of evidence was resumed yesterday, Sister Dorothy Cooper, sub-matron of Aorangi Private Hospital, said she went in the operating theatre when Barrett was lying on the table. The patient was put into a sitting position and his lower back swabbed with iodine. Then the hypodermic needle was inserted but Barrett | called out when the needle pricked him | and commenced to cry. Dr. Will asked Barrett what was the matter and if he j would rather not have the spinal anaesthetic. The patient was very nervous and very white and Dr. Will told him to lie down. No attempt was made to use* the spinal needle. Barrett, when asked, said he would prefer a general anaesthetic so Dr. Williams was sent for. Witness produced the hospital record book in relation to Barrett’s illness and said there was no entry of a complaint about lumbago or pain in the back, while he was in hospital. Nor had Barrett complained at all of Dr. Will’s method of treatment. Witness described plaintiff as emotional and recalled other occasions when tears rolled down his cheeks at the visit of the doctor. Had there been an attempt at a spinal anaesthetic, it would have been recorded.

Sister A. P. Jury, theatre sister at the hospital, gave similar evidence. The spinal needle had not even been touched that morning when plaintiff was in the theatre.

Sister R. M. Braun also recalled plaintiff’s emotional outbursts.

Dr. J. H. North, medical superintendent of the Palmerston North Hospital, said a preliminary injection of morphia would dull the powers of observation of a patient. With a patient sitting up, a spinal needle was easily inserted. Witness recalled having had to abandon spinal anaesthesia on two oc/asions through lack of co-operation on th~ part of the patient. It was fairly common to get a pain in the back after the use of a spinal needle but it only lasted two or three days. Witness had never seen or read of lumbago being caused by the use of a spinal needle. He described Barrett’s disability as a chronic backache and the pain he had experienced as nothing like that associated with acute lumbago.

Dr. R. Chisholm said he substantially agreed with Dr. North. He had given hundreds of spinal anaesthetics and although back-ache followed in some cases, it was never persistent nor severe. This was not akin to either chronic or acute lumbago. This evidence concluded defendant’s case.

The jury were in retirement for fifteen minutes only, returning with a verdict for Dr. Will. They found that tho spinal needle had not been used as alleged by Barrett; that the treatment for lumbago was not negligent; and that the advice given Barrett for the same complaint was not negligent.