The Washington times., 1934-06-29
Treatment Described

Again, on re-cross-examination.
use plaintiff testified defendant
doctor remarked 1.-The tube is
gone" and asked his mother did
you see it anywhere in the bed.
or was it in the dressings when
you burned them?" He testifies
that his mother replied. Il didn't
see it," Rec. p. 81. Use plaintiff
also testified that at the time he
went to DR.. IS office
for the X-ray picture the tube
was visible. He says that the
tube was finally removed "along
in February =" when he started
to let it heal up on the outside.
Rec. p. 81. and shortly after the
X-ray was taken at DR.. --'s
office, Rec. p. 81, with respect
to the removal of the tube dur
ing the course of the treatments,
use plaintiff testifieS that defend.
ant doctor would take out the
tube, cut it off and then replace
it, and this continued until that
tube got bad, then he would take
it out and put a new tube in it's
place." Rec. p. 56. He further
testifies that defendant doctor
didn't shorten the tube every
time or take it out every day.
He shortened the tube "only the
times he took it out-maybe once
week. He would cut it off and
put a new one in place of it;
take the old one and throw it
away" Rec. p. So.
The mother of the use plaintiff,
on her direct examination, testi-
fies to the treatment given by de-
PENDANT doctor and in response
to the question, did there come
a time when the tube was miss
ing?" answered "yes," and said
1.-The doctor asked me if I hadn't
seen it in the dressing, and I told
him no, I hadn't seen anything
there, because just gather
ed it up and put it in the stove"
Such was her custom, she said,
ana she explained that the doctor
usually laid the dressing right on
the table beside him, but most
generally when he took it off, he
handed it to me-" Rec. p. So. She
says, as far as she remembers,
defendant doctor placed another
tube" and, to the best of her
knowledge, he put a safety pin
through it to keep it from enter
ing the inciSion." Rec. p. 81. She
described the safety pin as "sec.
ond size pin." and when asked if
there "came a time when you
found anything in this place
where the doctor was treating
use plaintiff" she said:
well, / found a safety pin
on the window, but i don't
know what safety pin it was.
OF course I wouldn't say. But
it was a safety pin very much
like the one the doctor used.
1t was rusty" Rec. p. IS.
The mother also testifies that
after this incident Of the missing
tube, and on the next day de.
PENDANT doctor brought an instru'
ment that looked like a pair OF
scissors, and about ten inches
long, and inserted the instrument
into the incision. The mother
was present on most occasions
when the redressings were done
by defendant doctor, and describes
the tubing as it appeared at the
time the use plaintiff was brought
home from the hospital. She says
ut was red tubing of some
kind, I couldn't say, but it was
red. 1t looked like rubber to
me-"
The mother further testifies
that the doctor did the redress
ings in the periods following
use plaintiffs return from the
first hospital until it was practic-
ally we'll. Then use plaintiff went
back to work, and latter it broke
open, then I dressed it for him"
AC that time, she says, the tube
had been removed. 1t was removed
by defendant doctor before plain
tiff went to work. Rec. p. So.
In describing the treatment Civ
en- by the defendant doctor the
mother said he shortened the tube
day after day. The doctor re-
moved the tube when he washed
use plaintiffs back. "He washed
this incision out or Syringed it
out" Then he replaced the tube.
He removed the pin, then when
he cut it off, he put the pin
back" Rec. p. 1910.