Bridgeton pioneer. (Bridgeton, N.J.) 1884-1919, 1913-10-02
PHYSICIANS
SUE FOR FEES
In Turn the Physicians Are
Charged.
OPERATION NOT NEEDED
Two Physicians Sue for Services
Rendered, But in Turn Are
Held Responsible
for Death.
from the Daily Pioneer, wednesday, Oct.


From the Daily Pioneer, wednesday, Oct. i
In the case of Steinsnyder against
the Adams Express Co. on motion OF
Mr.. Gaskill, Judge Carrow directed a
, verdict for the defendant, which was
done.
The next two cases yesterday were
tried together, and from the lawyers
engaged, and the prominence of the
pla ntiffs, they were coses of consid-
| eralbe interest, although the amount
involved in each case was not very
large.
The cases were DR.. F. Brook Bland,
| a surgeon of the Jefferson Hospital,
Philadelphia, against Mrs. Sarah Levy,
administrator of her husbands,
Charles Levy's estate, for professional
surgical services upon Mr.. Levy, of
Vineland, for which he claimed $50
visit for five visits, or $3.50, and the
case of DR.. Leonard F. Hatch, of Vine
| land, against Mrs Sarah Levy, Admin
istrator, ETC., for which his claim was
$2S7.
A jury was empanelled to try the
cases together.
The lawyers in the former case are
Stackhouse and Kramer, and Judge
Starr for plaintiff, and Westcott &
Westcott for the defence. In the lat
ter case, the lawyers were S. w. Hurd
for the plaintiff and Westcott & West
colt for the defence.
DIR. Hatch was the first witness
called, and gave detailed account of
his treatment of the cases. The result
of this evidence was that Mr. Levy
had to be operated upon for appendi-
citis
DR.. Hatch had a private hospital in
Vineland,. and to this place Mr.. Levy
was taken.
DR.. Bland gave practically similar
evidence as to the character of his
services and the basis OF his claim for
pay for those services.
The plaintiff rested. The defence
opened by Judge Westcott was to the
effect that the operation was not con-
tracted for by Mrs. Levy with DR..
Hatch for DR.. Bland, and that the op-
Grafton for appendicitis was not nee
essary, that there was nothing the
matter with the organ and to prove
this, the organ itself, preserved in
alcohol, was put in evidence.
The opening showed that Mr.. Levy
died-not so much from the operation,
, but by neglect after the operation.
1t was even hinted by Judge West
} colt that not only should the defence
claim there should be no verdict
against them, but that the defence
lshouid be awarded recouperative dam
ages for Mrs. Levy, for the value ot
her husbands life. Upon this sugges-
ton, Judge Starr made a motion that
the case be reopened and that the mo-
ton be argued before the court in
, chambers. The court took a recess
and Judge and lawyers retired to dis
cuss this new feature in the case.
When court re-entered, Mrs. Levy
was called to the witness stand by
Judge Carrow himself.
To Judge Westcott's question she
} said she was the widow OF Charles
Levy and was the administratrix Of
his estate.
Judge Westcott offered some pic
lures of Mr.. Levy, but the offer was
objected to by Judge Starr and the
offer was overruled. Mrs. Levy tes-
titled that her husband was in good
health until about six months before
he was operated on, when he began tt
have pains in his stomach. He went
to DR.. Hatch at times for medicine
DR.. Hatch finally suggested an oper.
alton for removal of the appendix
She declared that DR.. Hatch haC
agreed to perform the operation fol
$100. He, DR.. Hatch, stating he hat
got a specialist from st. Joseph:
Hospital, Philadelphia DR.. Hatch hat
him taken to his hospital, charging $2(
for the room and SIS for nurse.
While this witness was still on th'
stand, Judge Carrow said motion hat
been made to amend the plea of tn
defendant. He would allow the mo
tion Judge Carr entered a protes