The Washington times. [volume] (Washington [D.C.]) 1902-1939, 1904-04-27
PERKINS LETTER
ON OFFUTT CASE
Trustees of Emergency Will
Consider 1t.
He GIVES A FULL REVIEW
Throws Responsibility Upon Resident
Physician, to Whom Patients
Condition Was Reported.

the management.
The letter. which was received by the
directors on the morning preceding their
regular monthly meeting on the Sth
instant, and which viii be the subject
OF argument next Friday, is as follows:
DIR. William p. Carr in a recent letter
addressed to the Commissioners and pub
lished in the daily papers stated that the
physician in charge of Henry T. Onutt
the man who died January as a result
OF fracture of the skull. had violated
enc of the rules of the hospital IN leav-
ing the man in the emergency room all
night; that he had been severely repri-
manded; that the certificate Of commen-
dalton had been denied him, and that
he was no longer attached to the hos
pital.
False Impression.
This created the impression with the
public that I had been dismissed in dis
grace, when, as a matter of fact. left
the institution February /. nearly two
months ago without ever being called
before the attending staff or the board
and questioned regarding the case. Was
this just? If 1 were guilty of infrac-
tons Of the rules. why was I allowed
TO serve my full term?
I can only conclude that this act of
DR.. Carr was purpOsely TO lay blame
upon me and injure my reputation and
relieve the chief resident physician and
The hospital Of responsibility because l
was at the time no longer a member Of
the house STAFF"
About 7:3O o'clock January 5. I
brought Henry 7. Offutt in the ambu-
lance TO the hospital. Upon placing
him on the table in the emergency
room. i carefully examined his head and
found a depression which ! concluded
was a fracture. Having been told by
Dr. Burnett when the chief resident
came on duty last September that he
(chief resiGenD would assume all re-
sponsibility and the other physicians
none. ! called chief resident IN to see
the case. ! pointed out what l thought
was depressed fracture. He maze a
careful examination and then said:
Doctors Opinion.
. No, that is not a fracture. it is a
normal irregularity in the skull. / had
such case short time ago and
! thought il fracture. but the attending
surgeon pronounced it a normal ~eondl-
{, tion.'-
This can be coroborated by Miss
Odeh nurse, Policemen Shepherd an6
Vermillion, and the night janitor. all OF
whom were in the room at the time
the chief resident and / examined the
patient
Assuming. therefore, in view Of the
chief residents opinion that no frac-
ture existed. that the man was only
suffering from conclusion. / placed hin
on a bed in the emergency ward. No
ticing soon after this that the patient
was restless. tied two beds together
70 prevent him from falling on the floor
Until 2 a. m. l was treating other cases
in the emergency room and went in %
look al Mr.. OffUtt at least Cnce every
half hour. He seemed to be doing we'll
Reasons for Action.
Now. the question arises. why did ]
not send the patient up TO the ward?
To do so was an easy matter, but there
are many reasons why ! did not.
''First-The patient said he worked al
the House of Detention and was obliged
TO go on duty at 6 a m.
SecOnd-The police officer said the
mans family depended upon him en-
tirely for support and that If he could
report for duty at o'clock, II would be
10 his interests, and il necessary he
could then be excused 10 return 10 the
hospital.
'Third--I assumed in View of the opin-
-oE OF the chief resident that the pa
u6nt was suffering only from concus-
SION, which would perhaps disappear in
a Jew hours. / could not reach any
ctner conclusion II ] had treated him
20. fracture Of the skull and later il
was found that he had no such condi-
ton; or If had gone 10 the phone
ana tod the attending surgeon the
man hdd a fracture, i would have had
charges Of INSTRUMENTATION preferred
against me and would have in all prob
ability been dismissed.
No Violation Of Rules.
'Fourth-Pauents suffering from in
turies such as slight conclusion and al
coholism were left downstairs almost
every night. to be discharged after ;
or 6 O'Clock a m.
did I violate rule In leaving the
mar in the emergency room over night
! did not so far as / know. As a mat
ter Of fact. no one ever enlightened me
regarding rules governing the hospital
Cnce or twice soon after my appoint.
nient, in February, 1905 DR.. Burnett
LEFT word with one OF the physician
that he would come down some Sunday
and tell us all about the rules. Thai
was the last / ever heard from him re-
gaTding rules.
ance OF law excuses no one but J.
there are no means by which one Ca
get hold OF the laws, should he, III h,
violates them. be held responsible?
But II there is a law IN vogue a
the hospital prohibiting physicians from
leaving patients downstairs all nigh:
why did the chief resident violate II
he frequently leIL patents uuNnSIdlii
al night There IS one case / recall L,
mind which stands out prominently
abCve an others. and which 1 conclude
established a precedent for leaving pa
tieuts downstairs all night. The fact:
as ] shall relate them can be verified
BY the records and almost anyone en-
gagged in the institution at the time.
A Similar Case.J
ION October Is. 1903. Charles Howard
was brought 20 the hospital from
Thirteen-and-a-h half and d Streets south
west. Ambulance book shows he arrived
81 1880 a. m. and that the CHIEF
resident made a diagnosis Of alco-
holism and abrasion of the body
Emergency record shows fracture OF
ribs and internal hemorThage. The his
tory Of the case was that the man had
been run over by a heavy wagon. the
wheels passing over his body. Patient
was kept downstairs until 4:3O p. m
when he was sent 20 the ward from
strong room on first floor.
The attending surgeon saw him or
the afternoon of the second day after
admission. Immediately he pronounced
the man in a serious condition, and ex-