CLAIM BY PATIENT

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21358, 6 December 1932, Page 10

CLAIM BY PATIENT

TUBE FOUND IN BODY £3436 DAMAGES SOUGHT allegation of negligence DENIAL BY THE DEFENCE [FROM OUR OWN CORRESPONDENT] HAMILTON. Monday \ caS e of interest to medical practi--1 lienors and hospital staffs was commenced | before Mr. Justice Herdman and a special ! jury in the Hamilton Supreme Court to- ! flay, when Eric George Hood, mght- : watchman, Horotiu, sought to recover | from the Waikato Hospital Board and I Dr.'Stewart Crawford the sum of £3436 !6s lOd damages for alleged negligence ' arising from a tube being found in his : side following an operation six years ago. | Mr. Haigh and Mr. Munro appeared for I the plaintiff, Mr. Swarbrick for the Wai--1 kato Hospital Board, and Mr. Moss and i Mr. Stewart for Dr. Crawford. I In his statement of claim plaintiff set ! forth that he was admitted to the Waikato Hospital on July 13, 1926, suffering j from empyema. He alleged that he was ! negligently and unskilfully treated in that ' the board or its servant failed to remove ;i rubber tube from his left side. | The damages claimed included £lll los 1 9d yjedical expenses, £24 10s Id cha: ;es, £BOO loss of wages, and £2SUU gencial damages. The damages were claimed from the board, or alternative y from the second defendant. General Denial of Allegations

| The defence was a general denial of the plaintiff's allegations. ! Plaintiff described the operation He underwent in the Waikato Hospital on August 19, 1926, and the subsequent treatment of the wound in his back. He said he became very ill on September 24, 1925. Dr. McMiken was called, and the tube, which had been removed for some time, was re-inserted. Dr. Crawford performed the operation and was in chaige of plaintiff's case. On November 10 plaintiff was discharged, and became an out-patient. He went to the hospital every day and had his wound dressed. The wound finally closed in March, 1927. Plaintiff said he then went to the Auckland Hospital, where his trouble was diagnosed as neuritis of the sciatic nerve. He was given electrical treatment, and gained r.elief. At the end of 1927 he went back to Arapuni and worked as a carpentei s labourer, but he was unable to stand up to the work. He did odd jobs for the next three years, but suffered a good deal of pain. Finally, in September, 1931, lie consuited Dr. Pinfold, of Hamilton. lie had an X-ray photograph taken and this disclosed a tube in his chest. He was operated on in Auckland W Mr. Kenneth Mackenzie on January 19, 1932, and (he tube was removed.

Auckland Surgeon's Evidence Cross-examined, plaintiff said that Dr. Hunter saw him more frequently than any other doctor in the Waikato Hospital in 1926. To Mr. Swarbrick, plaintiff said his claim for loss of wages was based on the rate of £5 a week for the two and a-half years' loss of work he had suffered. Kenneth Mackenzie, surgeon, Auckland, described empyema as an accumulation of pus in the potential cavity of the lung. Treatment was effected by inserting a tube in the cavity containing the. pus. Witness said it would be correct to describe Dr. Crawford as being in charge of plaintiff's case. When witness saw the X-ray photograph disclosing the tube in the chest, in January, 1932, he wrote to Dr. Crawford telling him of the circumstances and suggesting that Dr. Crawford should have the facts checked. Mr. Mackenzie said lie received a reply from Dr. Crawford, in which the latter stated that he performed the operation on Ifood and had anchored the tube efficiently. Dr. Crawford had said the remainder of the work in treating Hood was the responsibility of the house surgeon and a senior nurse. While ho was sympathetic with Hood, Dr. Crawford had said he felt no responsibility for Hood's condition. Witness described the operation he performed on Hood in January, 1932, for the removal of the tube. The tube had shifted from its original position and was higher up in the chest. Witness said the tube found in Hood was much smaller in diameter than that usually used in empyema operations. View Regarding Tube The method usually followed in hospitals was described by witness. lie assumed that the tube removed from Hood's chest was not the one originally inserted in the wound at the time of the operation. The case for plaintiff was then closed. Mr. Swarbrick applied for a nonsuit on behalf of the Hospital Board on the ground that the 'board was not responsible for the negligence of its doctors or nurses when they were actually exercising their professional skill in the service of the board. The only duty that rested on tho board was to exercise reasonable care in appointing its medical and nursing staff. After hearing Mr. Monro's submission in reply. His Honor upheld Mr. Swarbrick's contentions, and nonsuited plaintiff as far as the Hospital Board was concerned. Mr. Moss said that as far as Dr. Crawford was concerned, the onus was on plaintiff to show that Dr. Crawford had failed to use ordinary care. Dr. Crawford was charged with negligence in failing to remove tho tube. It was clear on the evidence as it stood that the tube found in Hood's body was not the tube inserted by Dr. Crawford at the operation. He was unaware that the tube found was ever in Hood's body. Treatment of Patient Giving evidence, the defendant, Dr. Crawford, said he was assistant-medical superintendent at the Waikato Hospital in August, 1926. lie performed an empyema operation on Hood on August 19, and he efficiently anchored the tube by sewing it into the wound. The tube was a comparatively large one. Never at any time did he use the small tube taken from llood's body. The tube he used was removed from the body 10 days after the operation. The immediate care of the patient would devolve on the house surgeon and ward sister. Defendant could not remember who authorised the reduction in the size of the tube used, but the ward sister would use her own judgment in the matter. Dr. Crawford said ho did not see Hood after ho was discharged as an in-patient on November 10. 1926. Cross-examined by Mr. Huigh, defendant said the first tube was removed 10 days after tho operation. Another tube was reinserted on September 24 for tho special purpose of further draining tho wound. Between 20 and 30 nurses attended Hood during his stay in the hospital. Instructions were given by defendant on October 13 to remove the second tube. If the house surgeon considered it was advisable to put tho tube back he would do so and advise defendant of the fact. Defendant satisfied himself on October 16 that Hood had no tube in his body. He could not account for the fact that a tube was found near the lung in Januarv. 1932. Drs. 11. Douglas, G. W. Gower, J. M. Clarke and M. M. llockin said that Dr. Crawford had followed a sound practice in treating Hood in the way he had, as there was nothing he ought to have done and did not do. The hearing of evideuco was concluded and the case adjourned until to-morrow.