Further Evidence in “Swab” Case

Northern Advocate, 10 August 1938, Page 7

Further Evidence in “Swab” Case

[Special to “Northern Advocate”! AUCKLAND, This Day. Before Mr Justice Fair , and a jury in the Supreme Court yesterday, evidence for the plaintiff in the case in which Mrs Margaret Barry is claiming £lßl3 damages against the Auckland Hospital Board for alleged negligence or incompetent treatment, was completed. Plaintiff alleged that, after an operation last year in the Auckland Hospital, a swab or other foreign body had been left in her abdomen, and had caused her serious illness and suffering until it was removed by an operation performed at the Mater, Misericordiae Hospital on November 28. The defence denied that any foreign body had been found, or that the board had been guilty of any negligence. The claim was first heard early last June, when, after a six days’ hearing, the jury was unable to agree. Dr. Bridgman Continues Evidence.

Continuing his evidence. Dr. J. W. Bridgman, who performed the operation on plaintiff at the Mater Misericordiae Hospital, said that the theatre was short-staffed during the operation. “It became very apparent towards the end of the operation that concealment was the order of the day.” he continued. “Otherwise, these people who are coming forward to give evidence would have flooded the theatre with witnesses, not sent them away, and, in doing so, jeopardised the patient’s chance of coming off the table alive.” They might not have realised the risk they were taking, he added, but the fact remained that the theatre was short-staffed. Doctor's Conclusion.

“The only conclusion I can draw,” said witness, “is that it was shortstaffed- for a reason, and the reason was to get rid of essential witnesses so that the truth would not get out.” In answer to JMr Meredith, who appeared for the hospital board, witness said one would think the matter had nothing to do with the Mater Misericodiae Hospital, but he supposed the hospital stood to lose if it went against anybody else. He had kept the swab of cotton gauze he took from Mrs Barry, with a view to taking it back to the Mater Misericordiae Hospital and telling them not to play a trick like that on him again. “I was perfectly willing to keep this matter quiet,” he said. “I had no desire to be mixed up in it at all.” Witness said he knew at the time that the swab was burned with other litter from his desk, about December 19. He did not tell Mr and Mrs i Barry or their friends that he had found a swab. He tried to conceal the matter as long as he could, and finally acted only under legal advice. Dr. Horton’s View, Dr. W. H. Horton, who said he had learned the history of the case from the evidence at the previous hearing, and from the hospital notes, said he thought Mrs Barry had a foreign body present before the Mater Misericordiae operation. Her rapid recovery after the operation was the strongest feature of the case.

. - 3 The witness agreed with Mr Meredith’s suggestion that he had withdrawn to a certain extent criticism he had previously made of Mrs Barry’s treatment at the Auckland Hospital. The case was adjourned until today. Doctor’s Statements Contradicted. When the case was resumed today, a denial of Dr. Bridgeman’s criticism that the Misericordiae Hospital’s operating theatre was short-staffed for the surgical operation, was made. Mother Mary Agnes, second in charge of the Mater Hospital, gave evidence that on the occasion of Mrs "Sarry’s operation at the hospital, she assisted Dr. Bridgeman, other participants in the operation being Dr. Masked, the anaesthetist, and Nurse Weekes, instrument nurse. There were also two Scouts present, who were trained to obey signals or to call any extra assistance which might be required. “I emphatically deny that the theatre was short-staffed,” declared witness, replying to a question on that point, and referring to Dr. Bridgeman’s statements. She added that the only ball for any outside assistance on this occasion was when it was necessary to administer a saline injection. Both that and the remainder of the operation Were carried out with the staff, ansi in the manner regularly used.

Describing the operation, witness said that Dr. Bridgeman balanced a small felt-like substance on his finger, but no comment was made on it. She emphatically contradictel the statement by Dr. Bridgeman that she had made a remark about a swab, or that

Khe slid Ibis substance under ‘a cover. Everything taken out during the operation was placed on a kidney tray. There was no large substance, or anything of the size of an ordinary lemon, taken out during the operation. She would contradict such a statement emphatically. No message was left by the operating surgeon to have the material which was taken out during the operation examined later. (Proceeding).