EPIDEMIC WORKER.

Sun (Christchurch), Volume VI, Issue 1624, 29 April 1919, Page 9 (Supplement)

EPIDEMIC WORKER.

SUES HOSPITAL BOARD. JUDGMENT FOR PLAINTIFF. The civil case, in which Florence Martha Lewis (nee Parker) proceeded against the Ashburton Hospital and Charitable Aid Board for £l6 for services rendered by her as a nurse at the Methven Temporary Hospital during the influenza epidemic, was- concluded before Mr S. E. McCarthy, S.M., at the Magistrate's Court yesterday afternoon. The board had a counter-claim for £2O as compensation for 42 mattresses, 65 pillows and a carpet runner alleged to have been burnt by the plaintiff without permission. Mr C. S. Thomas appeared for the plaintiff and Mr C. W. Purnell, of Ashburton, for the board. The case for the plaintiff was to the effect that she had been in charge of the hospital at Methven and had worked right and day. Therefore she contended that she was entitled to more than 10/- a day, the ordinary rate of pay for untrained voluntary nurses. Plaintiff also stated that she had received authority from Dr Todd, the doctor in charge of the hospital, to destroy the mattresses, pillows and the carpet runner. Mr Purnell said that the dispute was really as to the amount to which plaintiff was entitled for her services. The board considered that 10/- a day .was a reasonable salary for plaintiff to receive and was willing to pay her this. With regard to the mattresses, etc.? destroyed, Mr Purnell contended that the onus was on plaintiff to prove that she had been given authority to burn them. It had cost the board £132 to replace the articles, for it had to supply new ones. Counsel pointed out that Dr i Todd had sworn in evidence that he ! had not given plaintiff permission to | destroy the articles. Mr Purnell drew attention to the evidence, given on commission, by one of the voluntary curses who had helped plaintiff at the Methven Hospital. This witness said that plaintiff had told her that she had no authority to burn the articles in question. Dr Herbert Chesson (District Health Officer) said that, during the epidemic, the rate of pay offered to unregistered nurses was 10/- a day. Although plaintiff had been in charge of the hospital she was not entitled to more than 10/a day. However, the board might, as a matter of courtesy, pay plaintiff a little more for her services, although it was not bound to do so. He was inclined to think that the wholesale destruction of the property by plaintiff was grossly stupid and unnecessary. Nurse Maude said that during the influenza epidemic 10/- a day had been offered by the Hospital Board for both trained and untrained nurses. Although no definite arrangements as to pay were made, it was quite understood that 10/- a Jay was what all workers were to receive. The Magistrate held that the plaintiff was entitled to £4 14/6 a week (13/6 a day) for her services in view of the fact that she had been in charge of the hospital and had worked practically day and night. With reference to the destruction of the articles, the Magistrate pointed out that at the time the influenza disease was not properly understood and so it would not be surprising if an order were given to burn articles supposed to be infected. From the evidence, the Magistrate said he was of opinion that plaintiff had been given authority to destroy the articles. Judgment was given for the plaintiff for £l2 3/- on the claim, and she also secured judgment on the counter-claim. Plaintiff was allowed costs.