Futile For Layman To Challenge Expert Evidence

Northern Advocate, 31 January 1940, Page 7

Futile For Layman To Challenge Expert Evidence

[Special to ‘'Northern Advocate”] DUNEDIN, This Day. Mr. J. W. Bartholomew, S.M., yesterday commented on the futility of laymen challenging expert evidence. Herbert William Winter countered a claim for £73, brought against him for professional services rendered to his wife by Dr. C. M. Greenslade, with allegations of incompetence and of unduly large fees being charged. Greenslade (Mr. A. B t Quelch), outlined the medical history of the case, stating that Winter’s wife had been suffering from" two distinct complaints. He later explainted that Mrs. Winter had died about a month after her final operation. Alleged Job Bungled. Winter, who conducted his own case, maintained that a proper X-ray should have been taken of his wife before the first operation, which, he alleged, was a failure. In spite of Greenslade’s assention that fees were minimum fixed by the British Medical Association’s scale. Winter repeated his charges that they were too high. “The whole job was bungled,” Winter asserted. “The doctor made a mistake in the first place by putting my wife through her first ordeal. ' “The second operation was not a success and, therefore, a third had to be done.” “Cannot Challenge Medical Evidence.” The magistrate: “Are you speaking as a layman?” Winter: Yes. The magistrate: A layman cannot challenge a medical man’s evidence. Allowance can be made for a man who has had experience of illness, such as you, but you must be rational —your evidence must be of the same standing as Greenslade’s. Winter: That is unfortunate, but I still say that if my wife had gone to a public hospital I would have had her with me yet. “Disgruntled Man.” The magistrate: It is no use for a layman to make charges of his sort. It is as absurd for you to challenge Greenslade’s evidence as for you to challenge any statement of mine on a point of law. Winter again complained that the fees were too exorbitant, but the magistrate pointed out that these should have been four times as much. “No attention should be paid to the statement; of a disgruntled man like this.” was the magistrate’s final comment. An order was made for payment of amount of the claim, £7B, together with costs, £7.