PATIENT'S CLAIM

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXIX, Issue 21359, 7 December 1932, Page 12

PATIENT'S CLAIM

£84.36 DAMAGES SOUGHT

TUBE FOUND IN BODY SURGEON EXONERATED JUDGMENT FOR DEFENDANT [FROM our own correspondent] HAMILTON, Tuesday A verdict was given for the defendant, Dr. Stewart Crawford, in tho case concluded before Mr. Justice Herdman and a special jury in tho Hamilton Supreme Court to-day in which Eric George Hood, night watchman, ITorotiu, claimed £3436 6s lOd damages from the Waikato Hospital Board and Dr. Crawford, of Eltham. for alleged negligence. Plaintiff stated that he was operated on in the Waikato Hospital by Dr. Crawford on August 19, 1926, for empyema. He was discharged as an in-patient on November 10, 1926, and in January, 1932, a tube 4£in. long was removed from the vicinity of his lung. He stated that during the five and a-half years following his operation he had suffered a great deal of pain in consequence of the presence of the tube.

His Honor non-suited plaintiff as against the Hospital Board yesterday on the grounds that, provided the board had exercised care in the selection of its staff, it was not responsible for the negligence of its doctors and nurses while they were performing professional duties. Messrs. Haigh and Munro appeared for plaintiff, Swarbrick for the Hospital Board and Messrs.. Moss and Stewart for Dr. Crawford. Contentions for Defence When the case was resumed to-day Mr. Moss, addressing the jury, said the bare question was not whether there was neglect on the part of someone else, but whether there was neglect on the part, of Dr. Crawford. On the evidence adduced the plaintiff had not only failed to prove neglect by Dr. Crawford, but had shown that Dr. Crawford was a careful and skilful practitioner, who did everything that could have been done for Hood. Counsel said the case should never have been brought against Dr. Crawford. It was a shot in the dark, and was a most unfair proceeding against a skilful and careful practitioner. Mr. Haigh said there was nothing else the plaintiff could bavesrdone in the circumstances. Plaintiff charged Dr. Crawford with having negligently and unskilfully treated him. Counsel said he thought the jury would agree that the tube was left in Hood's wound at the Waikato Hospital. If the doctors were not responsible then the only thing that would have been left for Hood was to have brought the 20 or 30 nurses who attended him before tlie Court. That would have been unreasonable, and the only thing left was to bring the doctor in charge of the case before the Court. Question ol Responsibility If Dr. Crawford had efficiently inspected the wound on October 16 he must have discovered the tube, said counsel. He should have seen there was an entry in the records noting the removal of tlio tube. There was no entry and counsel suggested that the omission of the . entry was negligence on Dr. Crawford's part. Dr. Crawford had not proved the onus placed on him that he was not negligent, lie had not explained how the tube was left in the plaintiff if he had not been negligent. Dr. Crawford was the man in charge of the case and he must take the responsibility.

Counsel said if the board was not responsible and tbo doctor in charge was not responsible, then the position would be farcical, and no one who had suffered an injury in a hospital could get redress. Counsel asked the jury to assess the damages on a generous scale.

His Honor said the onus was on the plaintiff to prove negligence. It was a serious tiling for a doctor just commencing his career to be charged with negligence. Tho plaintiff, it was true, had suffered a good deal. 110 was apparently not quite sure who was responsible for leaving the tube in his body. In one breath he said it was the board and in another he said it was Dr. Crawford. He had to satisfy the jury that Dr. Crawford had been guilty of negligence. Tube Not Reported Missing

Dr. Crawford had to trust others, the house surgeons and nurses, continued His Honor. After being discharged as an inpatient on November 10, Hood was treated as an out-patient by other doctors. He was treated in the Auckland Hospital and by Dr. Martin, of Ngaruawahia. It was never reported to Dr. Crawford that tho tube was missing, nor had it been suggested that the tube had disappeared.

His Honor described tho claim for £2500 general damages as exaggerated and altogether unreasonable. If the jury found that defendant was negligent then it should award plaintiff some reasonable compensation for the pain and suffering he had had.

After an hour's retirement the jury returned a verdict for defendant.

Judgment was entered for the Hospital Board on tbe non-suit point, and for'the defendant. Plaintiff was ordered to pay both defendants' costs.