FINGERS AMPUTATED

Northern Advocate, 8 November 1934, Page 7

FINGERS AMPUTATED

i NEGLIGENCE ALLEGATION. ] t ! CLAIM FOR £ISOO, I . I 1 DOCTOR A RESPONSIBLE PARTY. [Per Press Association.—Copyrightl GISBORNE, This Day. The hearing of a claim for £ISOO damages for alleged negligent treatment was commenced in the Supreme Court before Mr Justice Ostler. The claim was made by Brian Pelham Dods in respect of an operation performed on his left hand at the public hospital, and defendant was Dr. R. J, B. Hall, medical superintendent. The statement of claim alleges that plaitiff was suffering from an injury to the ring finger of the left hand and consented to the removal of the finger. It is alleged that the middle finger, as well as the ring finger, was removed, and that plaintiff therefore has been unable to continue his occupation as a butcher. The defence is a denial of negligence. Mr L. T. Burnard, for the plaintiff, submitted that the medical superintendent was the person responsible and the house surgeon, who performed the operation was his servant for the purpose of the operation, Mr D. R, Hoggard, counsel for the defendant, intimated that the defence did not admit the facts quite as they were stated by the plaintiff. Dr, Hall was not, as suggested, looking over the shoulder, of the house surgeon who performed the operation. Plaintiff stated in evidence that he had been employed at the Gisborne freezing works, and on April 21, 1934, met with an accident to the ring finger of his left hand, for which he was sent to the Cook Hospital. Afterwards it was decided that the finger would have to come off. Dr. Hall and Dr. Thomas attended witness and Dr. Hall, with a pencil, drew on the finger a mark indicating the exact place where the finger would have to come off.

The morning after the operation, plaintiff continued, Dr. Hall came in with Dr. Thomas and the ward sister. He said he had some rather regrettable news, that an accident had occurred and that the wrong finger had been removed.

Prior to going into hospital, witness said, he had been .working as a slaughterman' having been employed at the works for two years. ' He had received compensation for the loss of the ring finger. ; Dr. Russell Thomas, the hohse surgeon, who performed ■ the actual operation, stated that it was not usually decided whether witness/or Dr. Hall would do the operation until they reached the theatre. In this case, on' the day before Dr. Hall marked oh the patient’s finger," in witness’ presence, the manner in which the finger was to be amputated. The usual routine was followed, but witness did not think he was told then he was to do the operation. Preparations for the operation were detailed by witness. He said the patient then moved and contaminated the sterile towels and the whole thing had to be done again. Witness repainted the hand with iodine and was just going to place a sterile towel between the fingers as before, when Dr. Hall asked him to put it. round the wrist, as it tended to obstruct the operation in the previous position. Witness did so. Witness said he took hold of the hand, indicated a spot on the hand, and asked Dr. Hall if he would begin there. Dr. Hall then indicated a point mearer the knuckle., Witness evidently then had the wrong finger. His Honour: “And he showed you' on the wrong finger a place where the first cut ought to be made?” Witness: “Yes.”‘

Witness stated that he confirmed the position for the commencement of the operation and then proceeded to amputate the finger. Dr. Hall was watching all the time, and gave various small instructions. Dr. Hall turned to leave the room when the operation was over and witness then discovered what had happened, and called him back. It was witness who first noticed the mistake and drew Dr. Hall’s attention to it.

The technique which he had first used in isolating the affected finger was that to which he had always been accustomed, witness stated. He was certain that in the first instance he had isolated the right finger, Mr Hoggard: “Can you account for the blunder?”—“No.”

Mr Burnard: “Had your technique not been interfered with by Dr. Hall the accident could not have happened?”—^.”

Dr J. R, Elder, house surgeon at the hospital, confirmed Dr. Thomas’. evidence regarding the operation. Mr Hoggard stated he proposad to call evidence to show that although Dr. Hall was in the room Dr. Thomas performed the operation and Dr, Hall v/as pot responsible for the mistake that was made.

His Honour: “I agree with you that Dr. Thomas was responsible, but it is for you to show me Dr. Hall was not responsible as well.” After hearing the evidence 'of Dr. Hall and legal argument, His Honnur held that while the initial mistake was made by Dr. Thomas, defendant was clearly negligent in that he bad failed to exercise the supervision required of him. His Honour held that Dr. Hall was a responsible party, but reserved his decision on the question of damages.