CLAIM FOR FEES

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 80, Issue 279, 24 November 1937, Page 9

CLAIM FOR FEES

CHIROPRACTOR’S ACTION INTERESTING POINT RAISED A case of considerable interest to chiropractors was heard by Mr. J. H. Salmon, S.M., in the Magistrate's Court yesterday when Stephen I. Nolan claimed £2 2s from Stephen C. Foote. Mr. V. B. Willis, for the defendant, took the point that under Section 28 of the Medical Practitioners’ Act a chiropractor has no protection and was not entitled to sue in a court of law in respect to fees. He contended that plaintiff was not a registered person, and unless a person performing medical service was registered he could not sue for fees. The statement of claim was for health services rendered. Plaintiff stated that defendant had received treatment at various periods, commencing seven years ago. He had expressed complete satisfaction and had always paid his accounts, except the present amount in dispute. In October of last year he came for an overhaul as usual and again expressed satisfaction, but refused to pay the account.

Asked what his diagnosis of the trouble was, the plaintiff replied that he did not diagnose, but analysed by manipulating the spinal cord by hand for the purpose of removing the pressure off the nerves. This released the pressure and allowed the organs to function properly. Mr. Willis: In order to arrive at your conclusions a considerable knowledge of anatomy Was necessary?—Yes, we take a three years’ course. You take your degrees in America? —Yes. He did not study medical work. The magistrate: You look for displacement, and if you can’t find it you send the patient somewhere else?— Yes. Witness said the defendant had shoulder and nerve trouble. He analysed the trouble and treated it. He did not describe this as an operation. In answer to the magistrate witness stated that a sudden jolt would cause displacement. Asked if this point by Mr. Willis had been raised in New Zealand before, witness replied that it had and he referred to particular eases of Hall v. Trotter and McNaughton v. Douglas. In answer to a question by Mr. Willis, witness stated that he gave defendant advice as to what was wrong with him. Stephen Foote, letter carrier, stated that plaintiff advised him to have adjustments made to the spine. Plaintiff treated him and the pains became violent in the neck. The treatment was discontinued for a time. Plaintiff told him a bone was out of position. Witness had at various times consulted other doctors and had also received treatment from plaintiff. Now he discovered that his trouble was rheumatism. Asked what the treatment was like, witness replied that in putting the bone back in place “they gave you an alm'ghty shove.” He felt now that he had paid enough for the treatment received. The magistrate: As Mr. Justice Denniston once said, “You want to immortalise yourself in the law report." Cross-examined: He went to a Mr. Stephens first for treatment and then came to plaintiff to undo what had been done. He denied that he recommended other patients to go to plantiff.

The magistrate said: “The amount of the claim is very small but a question arises upon an important matter of law which is of considerable interest to chiropractors and patients, particularly as to whether a chiropractor is entitled to recover fees for services rendered. Defendant obviously takes the view that he obtained no benefit from treatment and should not pay. His counsel has taken the legal point under the Medical Practitioners’ Act, Section 28, that when not a registered person plaintiff rendered a medical service and was not entitled to sue for fees. The question becomes a simple one—are the services rendered by plaintiff medical or surgical, advice or attendance? Our Act is obviously based on the English Act and this section appears to be similar to the section m the English Act. In the case of Hall v. Trotter referred to the charges had been recovered for manipulation. That was followed by a case on appeal of McNaughton v Douglas, 1927. In that case the Appeal Court took the view that thservices rendered should be split up into manipulative treatment for which judgment should be given, but that plaintiff was not entitled to recover for advice. That is what I must follow,” added the magistrate. Judgment was given for services rendered under manipulative treatment for the amount claimed, with costs 10s.