DOCTOR AND LODGE PATIENT.

Otago Daily Times, Issue 19270, 6 September 1924, Page 17

DOCTOR AND LODGE PATIENT.

SUPREME COURT ACTION. QUESTION OF OPERATIONS. DOCTOR’S CLAIM FAILS. In the Supremo Court at Invercargill Francis Orcti Mac Gibbon, medical practitioner, sued liruco Leggat and John Thomas Leggat, executors of the will of the late James Leggat, for the sum of £llß9, for services in connection with operations.—Mr Eustace Russell appeared for plaintiff, and Messrs W. Macalister and J. Tait for defendants. His Honor Mr Justice Sim delivered judgment yesterday as follows: “The plaintiff is a medical practitioner practising in Invercargill. The defendants are the executors of the will of James Leggat, who died in May, 1923. Iho deceased was a member of a lodge, belonging to the United Friendly Societies’ Medical Association of Invercargill, and he was attended by the plaintiff as lodge surgeon. The deceased was suffering from advanced heart disease, and was dropsical. After treating him medicinally for some time, the plaintiff decided that it was necessary to tap deceased in order to remove fluid from his abdomen. Tor this purpose ho performed the surgical operation known as paracentesis abdominis, this operation was repeated from time to time between the 21st of April, 1920, and the 4th of May, 1923, and the plaintiff now claims to recover from the defendants the sum of £lB9 for his services in connection with those operations. •“The duties of the plaintiff as a lodge surgeon are defined by the agreement of the 7t,h day of Match, 1913, made between the United Friendly Societies Medical Association of Invercargifl and the medical practitioners therein named. If the operations which the plaintiff performed on the deceased wore part of the professional attendance which he was bound as lodge surgeon to give under that agreement, then he is not entitled to maintain his present claim. ' The following are the material clauses of the agreement: —■ “2. The surgeons agree fo attend professionally all members, their wives, and children, step-children, and adopted children, if resident with them, who are under 18 years of age and unmarried, and also the mothers of unmarried membcrs if they reside with thorn and are dependent on them, during sickness (accouchement excepted), and provide them with advice. “3. The terms ‘attend professionally hereinbefore mentioned, shall not include cases the result of (a) quarrelling, (b) fighting, (c) insobriety, (d) direct results of recent alcoholic indulgence, (e) any illness or complaint brought on through immoral conduct, or from which he shall have suffered previous to his membership, or shall have concealed from the surgeons of the, association or any previous surgeon of the members’ lodge. Should the member require the surgeon to attend cases of the nature of (a), (b), (c). (d), or (e), as above, the surgeon shall be at liberty to charge as if the member did not belong to a lodge. Nor shall the term ‘attend professionally include the administration of _ anassthetica nor any operation which requires the administration of a general anaesthetic for its performance, nor shall it include the special treatment of those ‘diseases of the eye, ear, nose, or throat, which are usually referred to a specialist; but shall include any operation of a minor nature (such as lancing a boil or opening a superficial abscess, or putting stitches m a superficial wound). Oases of midwifery and miscarriage are also excluded from the term ‘attend professionally,’ “The controversy between the parties was as to the meaning and effect of the words in clause 3, ‘but shall include any operation of a minor nature (such as lanoimr a boil or opening a superficial abscess ofp ut t* n S stitches in a superficial wound).’ It was contended by Mr Russell that these words made it clear that ah surgical operations were excluded except except those of the kind specified, and that as the operation in question here was not of that character, the plaintiff was not bound to perform it as a lodge surgeon. lam unable to accept this view as to the meaning of these words. They are used to specify what appears to be intended as an exception to an exception, and they cannot he treated as dominating in this way the construction of the clause so far as it relates to surgical operations. It is difficult to ascertain exactly what the draftsman really meant when he used these words, or, indeed, to give them any intelligible effect. Some effect will be given to them if they are construed in the way suggested by Mr Macalister —namely, as intended to limit the effect of the words dealing with operations which require a genera! amesthetio for their performance, and to impose on the lodge surgeon the duty of performing minor operations of the kind specified, although in some special circumstances it may bo necessary to administer a general ansesthetic for their performance. That, in my opinion, is how thev ought to be construed, and the result of this view is that under clause 3, the term ‘attend professionally’ will include all professional attendance, whether medical or surgical, except in the following oases:— “1. Cases the result of (a) quarrelling, (b) fighting, (c), insobriety, (d) direct; results of recent alcoholic indulgence, (o) any illness or complaint brought on through immoral conduct, or in other specified ciicumstancea. “2. The administration of ansestehtics. “3. The special treatment of those diseases of the eye, ear, nose, or throat, which are usually referred to a specialist. “4. Any operation which requires for its performance the administration of a general anassthetic, but this exception does not include any operation of a minor nature, 6uch as lancing a boil, opening a superficial abscess, or putting stitches in a superficial wound, although such operation, in special circumstances, may require for its performance the administration of a general ansesthetio. ‘5. Cases of midwifery or miscarriage ” “In the present case all the operation# were performed without any general anassthetic. although a local amesthetio seems to have been generally used. The result is that the operations do not come within any of the specified exceptions, and must he treated as having been performed by the plaintiff as part of his duty as lodge surgeon. He is not entitled, therefore, to make any charge for his services, and judgement is for the defendants, withcosts on the lowest scale, and disbursements for fees of court to be fixed by the registrar.”