HOSPITAL BOARD SUED

Southland Times, Issue 25748, 11 August 1945, Page 8

HOSPITAL BOARD SUED

damages awarded TO WOMAN (P.A.) CHRISTCHURCH, August 10. A verdict in favour of the plaintiff, Bernice Reddecliffe, of Hororata, for £1750 general damages and £7/17/6 special damages was returned by the jury in the Supreme Court on her claim against the North Canterbury Hospital Board. The jury added a rider stating: “The jury is concerned at the state of administration of the X-ray department as revealed by the evidence in this C9 After the jury had been dismissed, Mr G. G. Watson, counsel for the Hospital Board, asked for the entry of judgment to be postponed until a certain question of law had been argued, adding that in any event he wished to give notice of motion for a new trial on the ground of the wrongful admission of evidence and misdirection of the jury. . , . .._ The case was one in which plaintitt alleged that in the X-ray treatment of a wart or corn on her foot the plaintiff suffered burns which ultimately made necessary an excision of the skin and a graft being taken from her calf. Mr T. A. Gresson and Mr K. A. Gough appeared for the plaintiff and Mr Watson, of Wellington, and Mr A. C. Perry for the defendant. In an 80-minutes address to the jury, Mr Justice Northcroft dealt with the liability of a qualified practitioner for negligence or incompetence of an assistant: with the question of the need for warning when a proposed treatment carried danger; and with the standards of care to be expected. PROTECTION OF DOCTORS

Not every unfortunate or untoward result suffered arose from negligence, his Honour said. Doctors had to be protected in the proper performance of their functions, and this was as much in the interests of the public as of the profession. Conversely, for the same reason, negligent treatment could not be condoned. Dr P. C. Fenwick was to be commended for his many vajuable services to the community, he said. Whether, however, from mistaken confidence or from habit of mind from long association with the assistant radiologist he might have left more than was thought advisable was a question that would have to be taken into account. The action was not against Dr Fenwick or Mr Hines, but against the hospital board and was based very largely on a system or practice which the hospital board permitted its employees to carry out.

“As I understand the case,” his Honour said, “it is not the skill of Dr Fenwick which is in any way in issue, but it is the manner in which he or the hospital board has allowed the administration of the department to develop.” The two questions in considering the evidence should be whether the plaintiff was treated negligently and, if so, whether this negligence caused damage, or whether it was one of those inevitable things that might happen after X-ray treatment. PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Reviewing history of the treatments, his Honour said that the complaint of the plaintiff fell especially under two headings: (1) That Mr Hines was given or assumed too much authority; and (2) that too large an area was treated. As counsel for the plaintiff put it, Mr Hines was not to be blamed that he had not the qualifications of a doctor. “But we are concerned only with the fact that he has not the qualifications nor the background of study which go into the making of a doctor,” he said. “It becomes a serious matter when an unqualified person does, or is about to do, things which should only be done by a qualified person.” After reviewing the evidence on the area treated, his Honour said that it was for the jury to decide whether a larger area than necessary had been treated. It was for the jury to consider, he said, whether there had been negligence on the part of any officers of the board, because if there had the hospital board, as the law stood, was liable. It was for the jury to say whether there had been negligence on the part of any of these persons or in a general manner in the administration of the department. Giving notice later of motion for a new trial, Mr Watson said the wrongful admission of evidence complained of was the admission of evidence in cross-examination as to other cases of alleged negligence. The grounds in regard to misdirection were that the jury were directed that they were entitled to find negligence generally on the manner in which the board had administered the X-ray department and the further direction that the general skill and confidence of Dr Fenwick were not in issue in this trial.