Oviedo v. London Guaranty & Accident Co.

SCHMIDT, J., pro tem. Some time in 1925, one Louis Beronio in the due course of his employment received a serious injury to his back and consulted the defendant Dr. T. J. Nolan, who testified, “I examined Louis Beronio and made a report to the London Guaranty & Accident Company concerning his condition. When Mr. Beronio first consulted me about April 15, 1925, he was complaining of pain in the back. He consulted me at that time, not at the instance or instigation of any insurance company. His case was then pending, or about to pend, before the Industrial Accident Commission. On May 11, 1925, I wrote to the Industrial Accident Commission giving them a detailed report of his condition. Following this, the patient was returned to me for treatment by the London Guaranty & Accident Company. The patient was under treatment from June 23, 1925, up to July 7, 1926. This bill was taken care of by the London Guaranty & Accident Company.” In his report the doctor gave detailed findings of the condition of the vertebra of Beronio stating that, “Beronio is totally disabled for any form of heavy, laborious work. . . . The patient should discard his braces . . . and receive intensive physio-therapy treatment. If this does not relieve the pain over the fourth lumbar vertebra he should then be operated upon. That was the conclusion of my examination on May 11, 1925. ... I made no examination of Beronio’s kidneys and urine. He complained of kidney and bladder symptoms, and it was for that reason that he was referred to Dr. Oviedo. (Respondent herein.) I specialize only in bones. .Dr. Oviedo specializes in kidneys. ... It is necessary at times to treat a man, if one particularly specializes, to cure him up of some other ailment.” “Q. And was that the case in this instance, doctor? A. Yes.” Then witness continuing: “I have done other medical or bone work for this defendant London Guaranty & Accident Company. In one of those cases I found it necessary to send the patient to some other specialist. I don’t know whether the London Guaranty & Accident Company paid the other doctor in that case, . . . When I sent Beronio to Dr. Oviedo, I did not instruct Dr. Oviedo as to where his report should be made. ... I received a communication in writing dated June 23, 1925, from the London Guaranty & Accident Company signed by Mr. McAllister regarding Beronio which read as [41]follows: 1 This is to advise that we will be responsible for physio-therapy treatments to be rendered by you to Mr. Beronio in accordance with your report, to the Industrial Accident Commission, dated May 11, 1925.’ ”■ The witness further testified, “That did not suit, me because it did not specify in there that I was to receive pay for any treatment that I might render him or any cash I should apply on him, or for any of my office visits, so that I called Mr. McAllister up and told him that the order was not satisfactory, and I said, ‘I have inserted in lead pencil a clause that I wish you would put in your next order. ’ So he just took the original and wrote on the bottom: ‘Dr. Nolan: Give Mr. Beronio any treatment that you deem necessary at our expense. ’ And he signed it here. . . . The way I came to send Beronio to Dr. Oviedo was on account of his complaint of kidney and bladder symptoms. . . . When Beronio mentioned Dr. Oviedo’s name I told him that he had better consult him concerning his symptoms that he was complaining of. I never told Dr. Oviedo that the London Guaranty & Accident Company would pay his bill and be responsible for his bill. I do not believe that I had any conversation regarding who would be responsible for the bill. I have a faint recollection of telling him that he should get an order. I couldn’t swear to that, however. ... I did not give Beronio any treatment myself for his kidneys. All I treated him for was his back condition and I was paid for that by the London Guaranty & Accident Company. I do not remember any conversation with Beronio concerning financial conditions or pay for Dr. Oviedo. ... I stated . . . that it was necessary at times with a condition such as Beronio’s to clear up another injury or illness before I could give my treatment. I felt that Mr. Beronio had poison in his system; . . . interfering with him making a normal recovery. In addition to that, it was producing in his general system an arthritis which would interfere with any recovery, and would interfere with my treatment of him for the ailment for which I was treating him, that is, I could have treated him, but I would not have gotten the same result.”