CAUSES OF PNEUMONIA

Otago Daily Times, Issue 23529, 18 June 1938, Page 25

CAUSES OF PNEUMONIA

EVIDENCE IN ARBITRATION COURT CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION CONFLICTING MEDICAL VIEWS An admission that the precise causation of common colds or subsequent maladies such as pneumonia was still to a large extent a closed book to the medical profession was made by Dr E. F. D’Ath (pathologist at the Otago Medical School), when giving evidence in the Arbitration Court yesterday in the action for compensation brought by Duncan Bell, a labourer, against the City Corporation, in respect of pneumonia and pleurisy contracted by him in the course of 'his work, as a result of which he was still incapacitated. The latter stage of the proceedings developed into an expert and technical pathological discussion on the causation of pneumonia and the common cold, during the course of which Dr E. F. D’Ath described the degree of medical, ignorance which still exists with respect to the origins of both. Dr D’Ath said the profession had made some progress during the past few years, but it was still working very much in the dark. Experiments. he said, had been conducted with a view to inducing colds artificially, but they had failed, and the profession still had a very imperfect knowledge of the subject. A lot was heard in cases of pneumonia of a lowering of bodily vitality causing infection. There was no authority for that. The term “ lowering of bodily vitality or resistance,” was merely an expression used to cloak medical ignorance. Dr D’Ath was the sixth qualified medical man to give evidence in the case, four having testified for the plaintiff and one for the defence. One of the features of the case was the conflict of opinion among expert witnesses concerning the inference to be drawn from the plaintiff’s working conditions and the disease contracted by him. For the plaintiff medical witnesses placed chill and exposure high in the list of causes of colds and pneumonia, whereas Dr D’Ath questioned whether cold or a thorough wetting could be postulated as direct causes. All medical evidence on that point was purely empirical and without scientific foundation. Cross-examined at length by Mr Adams, Dr D’Ath elaborated his views. Mr Justice O’Regan presided and had associated with him Mr W. Cecil Prime (employers’ representative) and Mr A. L. Monteith (employees’ representative). The plaintiff was represented by Mr F. B. Adams and Mr A. N. Haggitt appeared for the City Corporation. Mr Haggitt, opening the case for the defence, said that in the event of the action succeeding, a precedent would be set under which anyone who got his feet wet, contracted a cold, and was incapacitated for a period, would be entitled to compensation. Counsel’s contention was that the plaintiff did not suffer his present affection as a result of an accident at his work, there being no grounds for such an inference. Nevertheless, even if he did suffer injury, he had been adequately compensated by payments of sick pay for four months. Counsel submitted that plaintiff's present incapacitation was attributable to the old injury to the right lung of 20 years ago. Francis Robert Grindley, clerk in the Town Hall, gave evidence of sick pay paid to the plaintiff. Dr F. Fitchett said there were various types' of pneumonia, but in the present case there had been no attempt to determine the type. He was of the opinion that it was not proper or just to draw an inference of accident in this case as there was no proof to support it. Witness discussed the causation of pneumonia and the possibility of a purely normal contraction of the disease. Cross-examined by Mr Adams, witness admitted that it was fair to infer that the plaintiff’s conditions of work caused him to catch cold and that pneumonia developed from that cold. He could not say what the plaintiff was suffering from at the moment as nothing had been medically proved. Re-ejcarnined by Mr Haggitt, witness said that, considering the evidence concerning symptoms and the fact that the plaintiff had not been receiving treatment, there would be much more demonstrable evidence of disease than there was to-day. Dr E. F. D’Ath, pathologist at the Medical School, said there was no fair inference to be drawn from the facts in the case that the plaintiff contracted pneumonia as a result of the w'etting he received in the course of his work. Witness dealt with the causes of colds and subsequent maladies, and said that medical knowledge on the subject was very imperfect. It was based on a hundred year old theory propounded by Pasteur which, in the light of modern medical research was becoming much less absolute. Witness said he could not see that any inference could be drawn of an associa tion between the plaintiff’s work and the cold he contracted. The shivering of the plaintiff at his work indicated that the disease was already at work in his body. Witness considered that it was a fair summing up of the position to say that the pneumonia was not caused by plaintiff’s working conditions, and that his present condition was not due to pneumonia.

The seventh medical witness. Dr Barclay, gave evidence of an examination made by her of plaintiff, and produced X-ray plates to illustrate her findings. The Court adjourned until Thursday afternoon.