New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1894-07-22
SUITS AGAINST PHYSICIANS.
DR. CHARLES MBrRNEY WANTS a BALANCE
OF 5000 AND HIS FORMER PATIENT
SEEKS s. 900 DAMAGES

Two suits have been begun in the Superior and
Common Pleas courts against two OF the most
prominent physicians and surgeons In this city. and
damages asked against the physicians in the
Of $1,000 for alleged malpractice and unpro-
fessonal treatment. one Of the suits Is brought by
DR. Charles McBurney. OF No y Wcs; T'hiriy-sev-
enth-si.. against Henry ~ Smith. Of Trenton y j..
and he seeks TO recover $500 balance which he al
.eges the defendant owes him for professional ser
vices rendered between June IS lSs9 and October 70
1890 When the suit 10 tr.al Dr. McBurney
defau,ei. and judgmen, rendered FOR the de-
PENDANT
The default was opened later however. by Judge
Bischon. OF the Court Of Common Pleas. ana the
trial Of the issues VIII be had In October.
In his afidavit Or McI,urney alleges that ne
ca,.ed 20 attend Mr. Smith a; Trenton on June
IS, 1883 He found Smiths thigh was broken. his
left leg was shattered. and me upper bone - the
right fractured. Dr. McBurney pm, the
broken bones in splints and thereafter visited his
patient regularly intervals Of week during
the months OF July. Angus; and September. and
subsequently paid him many visits mp 20 April 4.
1890. Then Mr. Smith this city. and again
he placed himself under Or. McI}urney's care. As
he did not seem to be getting any better. u was
suggested that Mr.. Smith enter Roosevelt Hospital.
that an operation might be performed upon him
He consented. and on October s. 1880 he entered The
hospital and submitted 20 the operation. Or. Ne
Burney says that The operation was not A success
because Of the imperfect condition 81 the patient
the bones failed to unite" Several operations had
subsequently 10 be performed.
The paint III presented his bin for services amount
ing TO &,cr. but having paid &.OJD and claiming
that the surgeon had been guilty Of malpractice.
Mr. Smith refused 10 pay the balance OF A.0oD
Hence the suit
In his answer, Mr. Smith alleges that II his
diton was prejudicla to the success Of the opera
ton the surgeon should not have operated on him.
AS second defence the patient alleges that the
plaintiff 80 negligently and unskllfully conducted
himself in and about the above mentioned services
that he undertook 10 perform for the defendant
that the defendant was compelled TO and did under
severe and painful operations which would not
have been necessary had the plaintiff used proper
and skill in performing said services for the
defendant. That by reason Of said neglect and
skilfulness the defendant confined TO his bed
for many weeks. and was put 10 great expense. SUI
Mr.. Smith then sets up n cOunt er-claim for 81
damages and asks judgment against Or. McBurncy
in that sum.
In a supplemental AFFIDAVIT DR.. McIurney alleges
that the operation performed more than three
years prior the entry Of the claim for damages
and he asks that the cOunter-clam be stricken out.
The second suit IS that brought by Mrs. I.cOcadia
Schaad, OF No. 339 East Eighty-six th-st. against
DR.. George VI. Edcbohls. Of no. 1913 Sccon1-ave.
DIT Edebohls Is the consulting surgeon OF ST. Francis
Hospital, in East Fifth-st Mrs Schaad him
IN the Superior Court for $1,000 damages for alleg 4
malpractice. and In her complaint she alleges that
through unskfu treatment by the doctor she SUI
fered a mishap from the effects OF which she has
been troubled since the physician attended 10
her at the birth OF child.