Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic medicine and Toxicology. Vol. 1Witthaus, R. A. (Rudolph August)
Science
Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic medicine and Toxicology. Vol. 1
Witthaus, R. A. (Rudolph August)
Medical jurisprudence; Poisons; Toxicology
_Value—How Proved._—When the medical man is compelled to go into
court to enforce payment for his services, it has been questioned
whether he can testify to the services rendered, and the facts and
circumstances surrounding the patient at the time of the treatment,
because it has been claimed that he could not do so without violating
the statute against the disclosure by physicians of information
received which is necessary to enable them to prescribe. The tendency
of the later decisions, however, seems to be that the breach of the
patient’s contract to pay relieves the physician from his obligation
of secrecy, and consequently, that if it is necessary for him to go
into court and prove the value of his services, he may testify, within
reasonable limitations, to all matters necessary to inform the court
fully as to the nature and extent of the disease or injuries of the
patient, in order that he may show the responsibility imposed upon him
and the extent of the services that he has rendered. This subject will
be fully considered under the head of “Privileged Communications.”
The usual course of practice where there is not an express contract
fixing the charges, is to prove the facts and circumstances showing the
treatment and services, and then to produce other physicians who, in
answer to a hypothetical question stating the facts and circumstances
in the case, assuming them as true, are allowed, if they state they
know the value of such services, to give an expert opinion as to what
that value is.[176] It has also been said (Ordronaux, “Jurisprudence
of Medicine,” § 43), that if a fee-bill of charges for such services
has been established by an association of physicians recognized by
law, such as a county medical society or a State medical society,
incorporated pursuant to statute, such fee-bill can, if properly
authenticated as having been adopted by the association, be offered in
evidence on behalf of the patient and against the physician. But such
a fee-bill in such a case would not be held to be conclusive evidence
of the value of the services, but will be received in evidence, if at
all, merely for the purpose of showing what was the usual and ordinary
charge in such cases. As we shall see later on, under “Malpractice,” a
judgment for services rendered, however small, is a bar to an action of
malpractice, because a judgment for the value of the services rendered
involves proof on the part of the plaintiff, and a finding on the part
of the court, that the services had value and were skilfully performed
and properly rendered.[177]
_Custom of Physicians to Treat Each Other Gratis,
Enforceable._—Physicians frequently treat each other, and it has been
held, where the custom exists to do so without charge, that such a
custom is binding. Of course, this rule does not prevent physicians
from making an express contract to waive the custom and agreeing that
the services be compensated.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account