FILARIASIS To the Editor:\p=m-\Sincethe outbreak of the war in the Pacific and the consequent infection of considerable numbers of American

troops with Wuchereria bancrofti, professional persons and laymen have developed a keen interest in filariasis. The search for cure has been followed breathlessly by interested members of both groups. In your editorial of March 16 entitled "Therapy of Filariasis Bancrofti" you point out that considerable progress has been made in the study of antimony compounds in filariasis. The editorial goes on to say, referring to the work of Culbertson and his associates, "With the exception of 1 patient suffering from periodic chyluria, all were rendered symptom free." To the best of my knowledge it has not been claimed by these workers or by any one else that the antimony compounds are effective in alleviating the symptoms of filariasis. In some infected human beings it has been possible to observe a decline in the numbers of circulating microfilariae, with final disappearance of these organisms in many cases, following anti mony therapy. However, most persons who have circulating microfilariae do not have symptoms of the disease, and, con versely, most of those who have symptoms do not exhibit micro filariae in the blood. With few or no exceptions the members of our armed forces who have been infected belong to the latter group. We do not yet know the effects of antimony compounds in this type of case. In the original article to which you refer (Culbertson, J. T. ; Rose, M. M., and Oliver-Gonzalez, Jos: Ant. J. Trop. Med. 25:403 [Sept.] 1945), under the heading "General Procedures," there is the following statement : "All were free of symptoms who had periodic of filariasis except one individual, chyluria for several years." I feel quite certain that the authors were describing the state of affairs which existed in their patients before the institution of therapy, not the results of
. . .

Bureau of

and

Legal Medicine Legislation

MEDICOLEGAL ABSTRACTS

Malpractice: Negligent Roentgen Examination by Chiropractor.The plaintiff sued the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic and others for damages alleged to have been caused by the malpractice of a chiropractor in examining and x-raying the plaintiff's back. From a judgment against the college and one of the individual chiropractors, the college appealed to the district court of appeal, second district, division 1, California. The plaintiff injured his back and was taken by a friend to the Los Angeles College of Chiropractic, where defendant Metzinger, a chiropractor, examined him. At the conclusion of the examination, Metzinger told the plaintiff that he had a bad sprain and should have some roentgenograms taken. The plaintiff was then carried to the x-ray laboratory in an adjoin ing room, where the defendant Joyant, also a chiropractor, who operated the laboratory, made an anterior-posterior x-ray of the plaintiff's pelvis, including the lumbar vertebrae and the lower dorsal vertebrae. After examining the x-ray, Joyant told the plaintiff "Well, this confirms the doctor's diagnosis. There are
no

therapy.

In view of the fact that a considerable number of persons affected with this disease in symptomatic form have great appre hension about it and are extremely anxious for some form of specific treatment, I believe that it would be of great importance to clarify this matter as soon as possible.

Epidemiologist, Tropical

Howard B. Shookhoff, Diseases.

M.D., New York.

bones broken." Plaintiff was then taken home, where he remained in bed for three days suffering intense pain. On the fourth day he called an M.D. and was taken to the Los Angeles General Hospital, where both lateral and anterior-posterior roentgenograms were taken. It was then discovered that the plaintiff was suffering from a compression fracture of the twelfth dorsal vertebra. The college first contended that Joyant, in operating the x-ray laboratory, was neither its agent nor employee at the time of the plaintiff's examination. The evidence indicated that the ground floor of one of the college buildings was divided into three rooms, with the x-ray laboratory on one side, a chemical laboratory on the other and the college waiting room in between. All the x-ray equipment was owned by the college president, who had owned the laboratory as well for many years. In 1929 an arrangement was made with the defendant Joyant whereby the latter, in return for free rent, telephone and janitor service, agreed to teach the x-ray course in the college whenever it appeared on the curriculum and to perform all necessary x-ray work on the president's patients. Neither the college nor the president, however, prescribed the fees which Joyant could charge his own patients or dictated rules for the operation of
the

INFLAMMABLE

CLOTHING

To the Editor:\p=m-\Thefrequency of serious accidents caused by ignition of highly inflammable clothing has recently brought the problem of hazardous fabrics to public attention, and federal legislation to prohibit the shipment in interstate commerce of hazardous fabrics for clothing has been proposed. In connection therewith the National Bureau of Standards has been asked to compile information on the types of fabrics which have figured in deaths and burns, for use in development of suitable requirements based on applicable tests. The primary interest lies in cases where clothing has burned with unusual rapidity, and particularly where sources of ignition have been small, such as sparks from a fireplace or bonfire, or a struck match. It is difficult to locate records of such accidents sufficiently complete to provide information on the fabric involved or names and addresses of accident victims who could be contacted directly. The cooperation of physicians and other readers of The Journal who can supply information thereon will be

plaintiff testified that he had never before been treated at the college. and knew no one connected with it. After the examination by Metzinger, the plaintiff was taken into the x-ray room, where Joyant made the roentgen examination, following which Joyant said that his regular charge was $15 but that because the plaintiff's friend was a former student at the college he would charge only $7.50. Before a recovery can be had against a principal for the alleged act of an ostensible agent, said the court, it must be shown that the third person dealing with the agent did so with a reasonable belief in the agent's authority, that the belief was generated by some act or neglect of the principal sought to be charged and that the third person, in relying on the agent's apparent authority, was not guilty of any negligence on his So far as the record reveals, the court said, the own behalf. college did nothing to put the plaintiff on notice that the x-ray laboratory was not an integral part of the institution, and it cannot seriously be contended that the plaintiff, when he was being carried from room to room suffering excruciating pain, should have inquired whether the individual doctors who examined him were employees of the college or were independent contractors. Agency is always a question of fact for the jury,
and the court held that the evidence in the case was sufficient support the jury's implied finding that Joyant was the ostensible agent of the college. The college also contended that there could be no recovery against an x-ray technician unless two facts are established : negligence on the part of the technician, and evidence that the
to

laboratory

or

the hours

during which it should be

open. The

greatly appreciated.

S. H. Ingberg, Washington Chief, Fire Resistance Section, National Bureau of Standards.

25,

D. C.

Downloaded From: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/ by a World Health Organization User on 06/26/2013