Medical evidence and the laws relating to compensation for injury / by R.J. Collie, M.D., J.P.

  • Robert John Collie
Date:
1909
Catalogue details

Licence: In copyright

Credit: Medical evidence and the laws relating to compensation for injury / by R.J. Collie, M.D., J.P. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    25/44 page 21
    Now some may not agree with me, but my position is this- Whilst I recognise almost every day the obligation that is cast upon me to meet my professional brethren, I believe there are very exceptional circumstances where it is my duty to those whom I represent not to court their presence. This statement, addressed to a medical audience, is a bold one to make, for I know it is heresy, but discussion is to follow this paper, and I shall have your views presently. His Honour Judge Mulligan, K.C., at S waff ham County Court, in the case of Purse v. Hayward, made the following defence of Dr. Watson, who had seen a patient without a consultation : “Now, when a second doctor is called in by a patient or his friends, to advise or to treat that patient, I can well understand that the first doctor should be informed and meet the second (except in urgent cases). Such a rule would, if I may say so with respect, seem just in principle, and beneficial in practice. But I do not see how that principle can apply when a strange doctor is going, not for the purpose of advising or treating the injured, but to make an examina¬ tion on behalf of a third person. On the contrary, if a doctor be requested by a master to ascertain the condition of an injured work¬ man with a view to resist a claim for compensation, it may be the duty of that doctor to make a surprise visit at a reasonable time. A doctor so requested must exercise his discretion, with which this Court is loth to interfere. I find no ground for any complaint against Dr. Watson.” III.-THE MEDICAL MAN AS REFEREE. An injured workman who has given notice of an accident or made a claim against his employer under the Workmen’s Compensation Act, 1^06, must, if asked by the employer, submit himself to medical examination by a duly qualified medical practitioner nominated and paid by the employer. The employer, however, is not called upon to pay any fee to the workman’s doctor if he attends at the examination. The reason of this is obvious. It is only fair that the employer should have an opportunity of having a report from a medical man as to the injury. Therefore the Act compels the workman to submit himself to an examination. If the workman chooses to have his own medical man present at the examination, wel] and good, but the employer should not be burdened with the expenses of the fee of the man’s doctor. Under the common law and the Employers’ Liability Act a work¬ man is not obliged to submit to a medical examination, and, therefore, if the employer requires an examination he must be prepared to pay the workman’s doctor for his attendance during the examination if this is demanded.
    digitised image 1
    digitised image 2
    digitised image 3