SLANDER ACTION

Timaru Herald, Volume CXLIV, Issue 21004, 5 April 1938, Page 6

SLANDER ACTION

Nurse Sues Doctor

FRICTION AT HOSPITAL By Telegraph—Press Association AUCKLAND, April 4. A claim for £475 for alleged libel and slander was brought against Dr. Archibald Jenkins, Medical Superintendent of the Waihi Hospital, by Isabella Jane Paddock, formerly matron of the Waihi Hospital, in the Supreme Court, before Mr Justice Fair. Mr Fitzherbert represented plaintiff and Mr Newbery appeared for the defendant. Statement of Claim In the plaintiff’s statement of claim it was alleged that on July 13, 1937. the defendant falsely and maliciously wrote or spoke to members of the Waihi Hospital Board and others that the matron semeed quite unable to acquire the requisite nursing standard or to properly undertake the management and discipline of the institution. He also said, so it was claimed, that in the theatre the matron did not appear to appreciate the meaning of the terms “aseptic” and “sterile,” and by her actions on three occasions rendered certain of the operations unsterile by mishandling instruments. Although the Superintendent had repeatedly asked her to familiarise herself with the theatre instruments, she still showed an almost entire ignorance of them and delayed operations when called upon to supply certain instruments. It was alleged that the defendant had said that the plaintiff had never troubled to familiarise herself with the operation of the sterilisers, she had made mistakes and failed to carry out instructions in connection with the provision of requirements in certain X-ray cases, which caused delay and inconvenience to both patients and operators, and hi a recent maternity case the Medical Superintendent found, on being called to the hospital, that the whole of the trained staff, including the matron, were attending the Surf Club ball and the husband of the patient had to be sent for the matron. On or about July 17, alleged the plaintiff, the defendant wrote to the chairman of the Waihi Hospital Board that he wished “to draw his attention to two further developments which made it urgently necessary for the safety of patients to relieve the matron of her duties without any further delay.” The defence, pleaded privilege and claimed that the statements were not defamatory. The plaintiff claimed that privilege was destroyed by the motive of malice In evidence the plaintiff detailed her experience in England and New Zealand before she went to Waihi on October 12, 1934. Dr Jenkins arrived about November 24, 1935, and she got on with him quite well. On May 27, 1936, a senior sister (Edith Black) and a junior sister (May Black) came to the hospital. At this stage the plaintiff's evidence was interrupted by consent.

Secretary’s Evidence

Walter Chalries' Collier, secretary of the Waihi Hospital Board until its amalgamation with the Thames Hospital Board, said that on March 10, 1936, the board expressed its appreciation of the work of Dr. Jenkins, Matron Paddock and other members of the staff. From the minute book of July 13, 1937, witness read an entry containing some of the allegations complained of by the plaintiff. The entry was made from a verbal report by Dr. Jenkins that was typed in the office next day and approved by Dr. Jenkins. A sub-committee of two was set up to report to the board, witness continued. Later the matron was asked to send in her resignation for consideration, and the board did not accept it. In August both Dr. Jenkins and the matron attended a special meeting of the Board when Dr. Jenkins described all his complaints and the matron replied to them. An application for a departmental inquiry was made but declined. A further meeting was held on September 21, witness said, and a resolution dismissing the matron was carried on the chairman’s casting vote after a resolution to dismiss Dr. Jenkins had been lost on the chairman’s casting vote. Dr. Jenkins was also instructed to give the matron the courtesy her position called for. As a result of an order for medicine, said witness, the defendant said to witness that so far as he was concerned the matron did not exist either as a nurse or in the dispensary. At board meetings Dr. Jenkins was more or less hostile throughout to the matron, and he lost his temper. To Mr Newbery, witness said there were private references at board meetings to a suggestion that the matron was going to resign, even if her resignation was refused. Witness might have expressed the opinion that the matron was not of a sufficient standard to control the institution. He had come to this opinion when she was first appointed, because she had been 16 years away from active nursing service. Her appointment was not approved by the Health Department for this reason. A Positive Type Dr. Jenkins was a very positive type, said witness. When he criticised the matron he did so completely, and when he defended her he did so properly. He was not vindictive. Complaints about the matron's inability to run the staff had been made by board members, witness said, and there had been verbal complaints by members of the staff of the matron’s conduct. Such difficulties were more or less continuous throughout the matron’s term, and the board’s attitude might fairly be summed up that if it got rid of the matron, since it had experienced difficulty in getting her, it would have to get another matron. A departmental inquiry was suggested by the defendant. Witness said that Dr. Jenkins always had the welfare of the hospital at heart. The case was adjourned.