DOCTOR SUED

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22512, 1 September 1936, Page 14

DOCTOR SUED

WOMAN PATIENT ERROR BY NURSE ALLEGED PAINTING FOR OPERATION' INJURIOUS LIQUID USED [by telegraph—press association] DUNE DIN, Monday A claim by Isabel Daisy Ingram for £7OO as damages, against Dr. Henry Walden Fitzgerald, was heard by Mr. Justice Kennedy in the Supreme Court at Dtinedii to-day. It was contended that the doctor, being in charge of an operating theatre, was responsible for an alleged mistake of a sister in painting plaintiff with iodised phenol, an injurious liquid, instead of with iodine prior to an operation. Mr. E. J. Anderson appeared for plaintiff and Mr. C. L. Calvert for defendant.

Mr. Anderson said plaintiff went into Prospect House, a private hospital, on October 28, 1932, and the next morning she underwent an operation there. The doctors in attendance were defendant, who was plaintiff's medical adviser and surgeon in charge of the theatre, an assistant surgeon, Dr. Gerald Fitzgerald, and an anaesthetist, Dr. James Fitzgerald. Also in the operating theatre were three sisters, Sisters Wicks, O'Meara and Leckie. The Discovery Made A doublu operation was commenced, said counsel, but when the second part was about to be started it was digcovered that the patient had been painted with iodised phenol, instead of with iodine. lodised phenol was a Bubstance having a drastic effect on the human fra;:ne. It contained a high percentage of carbolic acid.

j Very prompt and active steps .were taken to neutralise the effects, continued counsel, but it was not possible : to proceed with the second operation. ! For five weeks plaintiff received treat- | ment for burning, and then she had | the second part of the operation. It ! had been anticipated that she would be j in hospital for a fortnight, but she was j there for nearly six weeks. For six months after she went home, she was I partially invalid, and to-day sho was highly neurasthenic. It was contended that the case raised an important and interesting point of vicarious liability. It would be submitted, said Mr. Anderson, that if there were not proper facilities for care in the use of drugs, or if a sister was not properly experienced in this use, the doctor would be vicariously liable. The fact that a wrong bottle was there at a time when it - was not required showed thut there was want of strict supervision. Evidence was given by plaintiff and by several others, including Sister Leckie, who said she should have seen that the phenol was removed after the first part of the operation and put back in its cupboard. Case lor the Defence For the defence, Mr. Calvert said every case of negligence depended upon the facts a,s proved. He submitted that there was no rule of law which could support the view that the relationship existing between an operating surgeon and a nursie assisting him in an operation was siuch as to impose vicarious liability on the surgeon. The relationship of master and servant did not exist. The only negligence for which defendant could be made liable was his own personal negligence, and this was not alleged. Counsel also claimed that the burning was entirely superficial and was healed in four weeks. Defendant in evidence detailed the measures taken to remedy the effects of the iodised phenol. He said the dancer of carbolic poisoning was over in about ;56 hours, and the danger from burning a few dayn later. He did not expect any permanent disability from poisoning-

Witness was still in the witness bos when the Court adjourned until to-morrow.