Evening star., 1941-04-01
u. ). 10 Open
Final Argument
In Medical Case
Antitrust Issue
Expected to Go to
Jury Friday
By HAROLD B. ROGERS.

Court in an effort to convict two
medical groups and l8 doctors o1
conspiracy in violation of the Sher-
man Antitrust Act for alleged re-
straints against Group Health AS
sociation.
Tomorrow and Thursday are ex-
pected to be devoted to arguments
by both the prosecution and defense,
with about four hours allotted to
each by Justice James M. Proctor
The jurist probably will instruct
the jury Friday morning, and then
give the case to the 10 men and 2
women before noon. The trial has
been going on since February 5.
In Recess Today.
Court was in recess today to allow
counsel time for preparation of their
arguments. Testimony was con-
cluded at 2:29 pm. yesterday and
the court began consideration of
numerous prayers from both sides
for instructions to the jury.
The last day of testimony was
brief. The early part of the day
had been spent by Justice Proctor
and opposing counsel seeking to
iron out details of the huge amount
of documentary evidence. Including
additional exhibits admitted to the
record yesterday, the United States
laid $50 exhibits before the jury,
and the defense 81.
Two new witnesses appeared for
the defense, and two for the prose-
cution yesterday bringing the ap-
pearances up to 70 for the Govern
ment, As for the defense.
John Henry Levin and Grant W.
Kelleher, special assistants to the
attorney general, who have been
carrying the principal burden of
the prosecution during the trial
are expected to participate in the
final argument. William E. Leahy
will present most, if not all, of the
final argument for the defense.
The prosecution will open tomor-
row at 10 am, will give way for
the defense, and then the proSecu-
ton will close Thursday.
NOn- De1e0udHtS SucStitHcus
The last testimony was pre-
sented yesterday by the defense,
when Mr.. Leahy called upon DR.
Henry C. Macatee, president OF
Health Security Administration, and
DR.. Joseph S. Wall, chief of staff
of Children's Hospital, neither of
whom is a defendant in the case.
They both testified to a conference
in DR.. Wallis Office shortly after
Christmas, 1898, after the return
of the medical indictment by a
Federal grand jury on December 20
At the meeting, according to the
two witnesses, three Group Health
Association doctors said they were
dissatisfied with G. H. A, the work
they were called on to perform, and
were prepared to resign. The three
G. H. A. staff men were named as
DR.. Mario Scandiffio, now medical
director of G.. H. A.; DR.. Richard
Price and DR.. Raymond E. Selders.
The last two later did resign from
CHA. The three were quoted by
DR.. Macatee and DR.. Wall as stating
that If they resigned the remainder
Of the G. H. A. staff probably also
would resign and that would prob
ably break up G. H. A"
DR.. Scandiffio, who had been put
on the stand by the prosecution in
rebuttal testimony, previously had
testified on cross ss-examination by
Mr.. Leahy that he had attended the
meeting, that there had been dis
cussions of designations, but that he
personally had not offered to re-
sign. DR.. Scandifio also denied
asking DR.. Wall and DR.. Macatee
for help in re-establishing himself
in case he did resign from practice.
He said that DR.. Selders was diSsatis-
fled at that time with his position.
Differ on Doctors Load.
DR.. Scandiffio differed with DR..
Henry Rolf Brown, first medical dl-
rector of G. H. A, who was a wit
ness again yesterday, over the issue
of adequate medical care provided
by G. H. A. DR.. Brown claimed it
could not be adequate because OF
too many patients, but DR.. Scan
diffio produced figures which, &C
cording to him, showed G. H. A. did
not overload doctors. The latter
pointed to G. H. A. as giving more
adequate care than could be pro-
vided in private practice.
william F. Penniman, first preSi-
dent of G. H. A, and Raymond r
Zimmerman, an organizer of G. H
A.. were recalled as prosecution wit
nesses, and denied previous charges
from the stand by DR.. Brown that
the two lay officials had instructed
DR.. Brown to send to them his own
mail, unopened. They also denied
they had ever warned DR.. Brown tc
give members of the District Medical
Society "as little information as
possible"
DR.. Edwin A, Merritt, radiologist
Of this city, who is not defendant
testified for the defense that il
would take at least five minutes to
interpret an X-ray picture of the
chest, and IS minutes to interpret
such a picture of the gastro-intes-
tinal tract, in some cases much
longer. This was in sur-rebuttal to
DIR. Scandiffio's testimony that DR.
Price, of G. H. A., needed only from
one to five minutes for reading a
chest X-ray, and about five minutes
for an abdominal reading.
Mattingly Letter Presented.
The defense presented to the jury
a long letter from one of the de-
PENDANTS, DR.. Thomas E. ,Mattingly
presenting the reasons why DR.
Mattingly opposed the application
of DR.. Selders to practice surgery at
Sibley Hospital. The Government
has charged that organized medicine
had boycotted G. H. A. through
pressure on the hospitals to keep
out G. H. A. doctors and patients
But the defense has insisted
throughout the trial DR.. Selders was
excluded for professional reasons.
In his letter, written to the late
Or. Lewis H. Taylor, superintendent
of Sibley Hospital in December
1887, DR.. Mattingly had said, in part: