Annual report of the Council with balance sheet of the London and Counties Medical Protection Society : 1921

  • London and Counties Medical Protection Society
Date:
1921
Catalogue details

Licence: Public Domain Mark

Credit: Annual report of the Council with balance sheet of the London and Counties Medical Protection Society : 1921. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    8/40 (page 2)
    bo Legal Cases. A member practising in the country was called to attend a Panel patient of another practitioner. By virtue of a local arrangement he duly attended and diagnosed gastric trouble, and, after prescribing, instructed the patient’s wife that should the patient not feel better, or should any fresh symptoms develop, he should be summoned immedi- ately. Hearing nothing further of the case, he called again on the third day after his previous attendance and found no marked improve- ment, though indications of recovery from the gastric trouble were apparent. On this occasion the patient’s wife detained the member in a lengthy narration regarding her husband’s relatives, some of whom, she stated, had died of cancer. There having been nothing in the patient’s condition to suggest cancer, and the member being accustomed to suggestions of a similar nature amongst persons of the class of the patient and his wife, did not attach serious consideration to what the wife had said. Later in the day a message was delivered to the member informing him that he need not call again. Nothing more was heard of the case until some fourteen days later, when the member received a complaint from solicitors on behalf of the patient’s wife claiming damages in the sum of £100 for negligence which it was asserted had led to the death of the patient. This was the first intimation the mem- ber had received of the patient’s death. The Council took up the case on behalf of the member, and the charges against him were denied. The patient’s wife took proceedings against him in the local County Court, and in her claim brought charges against the member of negligence, incorrect diagnosis, and intoxication, and that as a result of these the member was responsible for her husband’s death. ‘The plaintiff's case was strongly resisted at every point, and strong expert evidence was obtained on the questions of negligence and wronyful diagnosis, and in the course of inquiry into the cause of death it was ascertained he had died of cerebral haemorrhage. The charge of intoxication was based upon the allegation that the member had. appeared to be dazed on his second attendance and had stumbled upon the stairs leading to the patient’s room. Regarding this charge of intoxication, conclusive evidence was obtained from a large number of persons with whom the member had been in association during that day, and in addition evidence was obtained from an architect and plan; prepared to show that the stairs leading to the patient’s room were extremely steep and badly lighted. Counsel was briefed on behalf of the member, and full preparations were made for trial. The case was finally abandoned by pla ntiff, but owing to the plaintiff's position the costs were not recoverable. A member holding the appointment of house surgeon at an infirmary in Scotland was sued by an out-patient for £500 damages for negligent treatment of a fractured arm, part of the grounds of the allegation being that the member had taken no x-ray photograph of