Evening star., 1941-03-31
6. H. A. Aides
Split on Issue Of
Adequate Care
Case Is Expected
To Go to the Jury
Late This Week
By HAROLD b. ROGERS.

The first medical director and the
present director of Group Health
Association differed today in District
Court during the medical antitrust
trial as to whether the Government
employees cooperative could give
adequate medical care to its men,
bers and their families.
Called back to the witness stand
by the defense, DR.. Henry Rolf
Brown, the first medical director of
G. H. A, told the jury:
II don't believe any doctor can
give adequate medical care seeing
40 or so or so a day"
A few minutes later, DR. Mario
Scandiffio. who is now medical di-
rector of the cooperative. made his
first appearance as a witness. He
brought to court the official G. H A.
records of the number of patients
seen daily by the staff doctors of
the organization during specific
periods in 1887 and 1898. The aver
age number of patients seen daily
by these doctors. according 10 the
records was about 18, DR.. Scandifflo
said.
Care Was Adequate.
The witness was asked by Grant
w. Kelleher, prosecution counsel,
about the quality of medical care
which DR.. Scandifio had seen de-
livered during the period in 1887 and
1888, when the Government charges
organized medicine with an alleged
conspiracy against G. H A.
While you were with G. H, A.
during this period" asked Mr.. Kel-
leher, did G. H A., in your view,
supply to its members adequate med
ical care?"
Most certainly" replied DR..
Scandifio.
For what reasons?"
I'VE could give better and more
adequate medical care than in pri-
vate practice" he said DR.. Scam
difio previously had testified he had
been in private practice in Washing
ton before joining G. H. A. as a
pediatrician in 1887.
Dr.. Scandifflo was the first i'm
portant rebuttal witness of the Gov
ernment today as the >anti-trust
case neared its end. The prosecu-
ton. which charges the American
Medical Association, the District of
Columbia Medical Society and l8
individual doctors Of Chicago and
Washington with violation Of the
Sherman Act. planned to conclude
rebuttal testimony today.
Some Records Missing.
Following rebuttal. it was expected
that some time would be consumed
while Justice Proctor hears srgu-
ments on prayers of counsel for in
structions to the jury. Counsel for
both sides hope for brief recess to
prepare for their finaL arguments
and indications today were that the
case NAV go TO the jury late this
week. The trial opened February
and will complete its eighth week on
Wednesday.
Dr.. Scandiffio presented consider
able detail from the records OF DR..
Richard Price, who later resigned
from G.. H. A. DR.. Price. the records
showed, had never seen more than
81 patients in any one day. There
were only II days in either 1887 or
1885. the records showed. when he
saw more than "a patients a day.
and his average was 18 daily. Some
of the Price records, DR.. Scandiffo
said. were missing. and could not be
founC. His report was based on
the remaining reports.
Patients Wife Testifies.
Defense Counsel William z. Leahv
brought back to the stand for brief
testimony DR.. Daniel L. Borden, who
is not personal defendant, but
represents the District Medical So
ciety as its president. He brought
to the trial an application of DR..
Raymond E Selders, former G. H. A.
surgeon, which had been forwarded
from Columbia Hospital to the
Washington Academy of Surgey for
a report on the Selders application
DR.. Selders' application had been
refused by all Washington hospitals.
previous testimony had indicated.
and there was some controversy be-
tween counsel today over the point
as to why the Washington Academy
of Surgery had written to one of
Dr.. Selders' sponsors in Oklahoma
instead of in Texas.
Mrs. Charles Hardin, wife OF a
patient who had been refused the
services of DR.. Selders, testified
briefly that her family physician
had referred the family to three diff
ferent surgeons who did not belong
to G. H. A. She said the family
physician had told them that G.
H. A. doctors were not permitted