Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1916-05-03
MALPRACTICE
C ASE AGAINST
PORTLAND DOCTOR
Harry H. Rich of Newport Sues
DIR. Alfred King of Portland
for S6OOO-Operation for Re-
moval of Appendix

Bangor, Me. May 2.-On concluding
testimony in the Glidden-Priest case,
which went to the jury at 4.3O o'clock
Monday afternoon, a suit for alleged
malpractice was begun in supreme
court, Justice George E. Bird presid-
ing.
The plaintiff claims damages of $4,000.
The plaintiff is Harry H. Rich Of New
port and the defendant is DR.. Alfred
King of Portland, who conducts pri
vate hospital in that city. F. Wade
Halliday represents the plaintiff and
w. H. CULVER of Portland the de-
PENDANT.
Mr.. Halliday opened, outlining the
case briefly and reading the declara-
ton, which recited the following facts
and contentious: The plaintiff on July
10, 1909, went to Portland for treatment
by DR.. King at his private hospital
for appendicitis. He was operated up
on on the Goth and was later informed
that he had joined the no appendix"
club He left the hospital Aug. q,
without being informed that his ap-
pendix had not been removed. On Nov.
% he was attacked by pains again and
on Dec. was brought to Bangor,
where the appendix was removed by
DR.. w. H. Simmons Of this city. The
declaration stated that the plaintiff
had suffered much pain and had been
put to great expense, ETC., and claim
ed damages in the sum Of $4,000.
The defendant pleads the general is
sue
Mr.. Halliday stated that this was not
an ordinary action for malpractice,
that Mr.. Rich had been told by DR..
King several times that his appendix
had been removed and that the doc
tor joked with him about belonging
to the "unappendix class" and DR..
King did not retract the statement
| that the appendix had been removed,
the plaintiff claims.
| The incision not healing, Mr.. Rich
consulted DR.. Abbott of Waterville.
who called DR.. King on the phone and
made arrangements for sending Mr..
Rich back to Portland. in case the
wound did not heal within a few days.
At that time, he claimed, DR.. King did
not state that the appendix had not
been removed. The incision appeared
to heal in a few days and Mr. Rich
did not go to Portland. Later he had
a recurrence Of the appendicitis pains
and was brought to Bangor and OPP
Grated upon by DR.. Simmons, who re-
moved the appendix, Mr.. Halliday said
Since the second operation Mr.. Rich
has not suffered like pains, he added
His client has lost much time and
been put to much expense, he claimed
Dr. Harold w. Abbott of Waterville
testified that he had attended Mr.
Rich for two or three weeks before the
incision healed. Later he attended the
plaintiff, who was suffering mucn
pain and he would have diagnosed his
case as one of acute appendicitis had
he not been told that the appendix
had been removed. The patient was
suffering badly and was unable to dc
anything.
i A searching cross examination fol-
lowed, Mr.. CULVER endeavoring to
bring out the fact that it is difficult
in some cases to locate the appendix
on account of adhesions, etc. Witness
stated that he had known of cases
where surgeons could not find the APP
pendix He said the Inflammation
might have resulted from several
causes. He didn't think the infamma
ton had reached the abdominal cav
ity A second operation is sometimes
necessary he said to clear up adhe-
from unknown causes.
On re-direct examination there was
a clash of counsel OH the question OF
the admissibility of testimony which
Mr.. Halliday sought to bring out.