The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1912-12-02
ASKS DOCTOR To
PAY HIM $1,000
Larirnore Man Seeks Dam.
ages from w. Fl, Wither.
slime Of This City.
HAS
CAUSED SUIT
Defendant Contends Plain.
tiff Failed to Take
Care of Him.

AiIc6IA8 AdulIy WOrk IN Inc r0yoOy0
OF his appendix. William Reynolds Of
Larimore has brought suit for $4,000
damages against DR.. W. H. Wither.
slime of this city. and the case will be
among those called for trial in the
district court at the opening Of the
December term tomorrow.
In his answer to the complaint. DR..
Witherstine contends that the disabili.
ty and loss. Of which the plaintiff
made complaint. vas caused solely
through the plaintiffs neglect and
failure to have his case properly and
seasonably attended to. and through
no fault Of the defendant"
The plaintiff alleges that on or
about June l. 1910. he was afflicted
with 4 serious pain and illness. and
called the defendant to prescribe for
him. The defendant. he alleges. In
formed him that he was suffering
from appendicitis. that an abscess had
formed and that 1t would be necessary
to undergo an operation to nave the
vermiform appendix removed.
He further alleges that defendant
did. on June 1. 1910. perform an
operation. and that he performed it in
such manner that he entirely failed in
the attempt to remove. the plaintiffs
appendix, and that. for the purpose
Of concealing his failure did falsely
and fraudulently represent and state
to the plaintiff that he had removed
the appendix"
The plaintiff also alleges that by
reason Of the failure of the defendant
to remove the appendix, he. the plain
tin. still suffered YER and protract-
ed pain, and was incapacitated from
work and caused to expend large sums
OF money for drugs IN surgical op-
Grafton.
Explains Condition.
In his answer, DR.. Witherstine states
that he advised the operation when he
was consulted. and that he perform
ed the operation. He contends that
he found an absccss in the region Of
the appendicitis and much g%angrenous
material and debris surrounding the
said region. He further contends that
because OF the condition existing 1t
was impossible to ascertain whether
or not the appendix had been entirely
removed, and, for the reason that Il
would be dangerous to make extensive
search therefore Of attempt to ex.
plore said region therefor because Of
the formation of ligaments in which
the parts surrounding the appendix
had become embedded. and that the
only proper treatment that could be
afforded in view Of the condition Of
a case wal to remove all the debris
and other material, and effect q drain
age" He states that he did this, and
n a he advised the plaintiff that in
the event of a recurrence Of the trou-
BILE or ailment in the vicinity Of the
appendix that he should undergo a
further operation.
The important part of the defense,
however, is that pertaining to the al
legged neglect on the part Of the
plaintiff. DR.. Witherstine contends
that he was first consulted profess
sionally by. the plaintiff on Sept. Is,
1908, and at that time he found the
plaintiff suffering from %peritonitis,
following a rupture Of the appendix.
He says that he effected a drainage Of
the part. the only remedy. and ex-
planned to the plaintiff his condition
and advised him to have an operation
performed later, when he had sufR.
GENTLY recovered and that this was
necessary to avoid serious disability
and sickness.
Failed to Have Work Done.
He contends that the plaintiff, not
w~ithstanding this advice and informa-
ton. neglected to have further treat
ment or operation until June /, 1910,
when he case had reached an aggra-
waited and serious condition. and that
plaintiff alleges was caused solely
failure to have his case attended to
at the proper time.
Attorney F. B. Feetham Is repre-
senting the plaintiff. while Attorney
Charles Murphy is looking after the
interests IF the defendant