FANTOME
If any PPRuNer can find an obit for Dr Matthew Banks, an Australian plastic surgeon who worked with Sir Archibald MacIndoe, attained in the War his RAF Wings, and later flew his Miles Gemini far and wide throughout Europe and the Middle East, working as a plastic surgeon for the rich and notable, I'd be most interested to read a copy.
Can't find an obit, but he is quite possibly the same chap who was involved in litigation way back in 1960 as below:
QUEEN’S BENCH DIVISION April 8th 1960
PLASTIC SURGERY
CORDER v. BANKS Before Mr. JUSTICE MCNAIR
His LORDSHIP, in a reserved judgment, awarded £1408 damages (including eight guineas special damages) to Mrs. Stella Rachel Gresham (formerly Miss Corder) of Bloomsbury Street, W.C, in this action in which she claimed damages against Mr. James Matthew Banks, plastic surgeon, carrying on practice at Harley Street, W.1, in respect of a facial disfigurement which she alleged was due to his negligent treatment
Mr. F. W. Beney, Q.C., and Mr. Arthur Mildon appeared for the plaintiff; Mr. Martin Jukes, Q.C. and Mr. Peter Webster for the defendant.
Judgment
Mr Justice McNair said that in 1952 the plaintiff was a single woman, aged 29, working as a typist. She was distressed at what she retarded as a disfiguring condition below her eyes, and on December 8 she attended Mr. Banks. He was a well-qualified plastic surgeon, who had facilities for seeing patients in consulting rooms in Harley Street, which be shared with another plastic surgeon, and be had the use of a secretary whom he shared with the other surgeon, and who was available to him during her normal hours of attendance from 10 a.m. to 5.30 p.m. from Monday to Friday. At this address there was also a resident janitor and his wife.
His Lordship accepted that Mr. Banks bad probably first told the plaintiff that his fee for performing an operation would be 50 guineas, with further nursing home charges, but, on being told that she could not afford such fees, that he had agreed to do the operation for a fee of 10 guineas inclusive on the basis that it would be done under a local anaesthetic and that the plaintiff would be an out-patient.
His Lordship found that no charge of professional negligence could be made against Mr. Banks solely on the ground that he did not insist on retaining Mrs. Gresham in a nursing home after the operation, although it was clear that this course involved some increased risk.
The purpose of the operation was to remove excess fat from beneath both eyelids. No criticism was directed to Mr. Banks’ technique for this operation. It was clear that the first 48 hours after the operation were of crucial importance as during that period bleeding might occur and, if it was not attended to properly, irreversible damage might result. It was on the failure of Mr. Banks to carry out sufficient aftercare that the plaintiff's case rested.
TELEPHONE NOT COVERED
His Lordship accepted the view that if a patient was operated on and allowed to go home proper directions should be given by the surgeon to the patient (as had been done in this ease) and that the surgeon himself, or a properly qualified substitute, should be available and accessible to deal with any untoward development until his next appointment to see the patient If a surgeon who adopted the course of letting a patient go home was relying on a telephone message from the patient to deal with an unexpected emergency which might arise, it was essential that the telephone should be adequately covered in the sense that messages would be received and transmitted to the surgeon. This was not done in this ease.
His Lordship was satisfied that on the first day after this operation there was substantial bleeding from the stitches, which continued intermittently for a day or so. that the prudent surgical practice required that such bleeding should be dealt with promptly by a skilled surgeon (the crucial period being the first 48 hours), that proper notification of such bleeding was sent to the address given but not received by Mr. Banks due to his failure to keep his telephone adequately covered or the failure of those for whom he was responsible to inform him of the message. That failure amounted to professional negligence.
His Lordship had reached the conclusion that the condition from which the plaintiff was now suffering was directly caused by the failure to deal with the initial bleeding within the first 48 hours, and accordingly the defendant was liable. On the question of damages, there was no impairment of function, no marked pain and suffering (though much mental anguish) and no loss of earning power. But the plaintiff suffered and had suffered for the past eight years from a definite and marked facial disfigurement such as would be a very real source of embarrassment and distress to any lady of her age.
His Lordship would assess the general damages at £1,500.
Solicitors.—Messrs. Kenneth Brown Baker, Baker: Messrs. Hempsons.