Letters Sent to James Ewing, May 2, 1929

May 2nd,1929. Dr. James Ewing, Cornell University Medical College, First Ave. and 28th St., New York City. Dear Dr. Ewing: Your note of April 30th, enclosing bills from Drs. Hemendeen and Humphries is at hand. These bills have been 0,K'd and they will be paid in the near future. We are glad to note that you were successful in reducing Dr. Herendeen's bill from $500 to $300, for after all this seems like quite a satiafactory fee for group work such as was involved in this instance. With reference to Dr; Humphries bills: Please note that I am returning two bills from Dr. Humphries for services rendered Miss K. Schaub. One dated Narch 3lst, and the other April loth. The bill dated March 3lst, came along with bills for the other Cour girls, but we were unable to reconcile Dr. Humphries notations -- that is, you will note that on the March 31st bill, he has an item in 1928 designated hospital patient $50.00, although we have no knowledge of her being confined to the hospital until January 21,1929. The January 26th, 1929 item involves a period when she was confined to the Orange Orthopaedic Hospital. I called Dr. Humphries and asked him for more detailed information with reference to his bill of March 3lst, and you then received the bill dated April 10th. The fact that the items listed on this bill are so entirely different from the original makes us wonder how accurate Dr. Humphries is in properly recording the attention which he is giving these girls. He has so billed us the second time that the amount is exactly the same although he includes one call which was rendered after the date of the first bill. We do not look with favor upon such carelessness in this phase of the work. On February 21,1929, we paid a bill of the N.J. Orthopaedic Hospital and Dispensary in connection for hospital care of Miss Schaub on January 2lst, and February 14th, also for foor (4) x-rays taken Nov. 1,1927, January 24th,1929,April 24th,1928 and December h,1928. Inasmuch as our Stipulation did not become effective until June 11,1928, you can appreciate that in this instance we paid for x-ray services which did not properly come under the stipulation. Tie did not make an issue of this point, however, as the amount involved was small. We regret to have to bother you with these details, but feol that it is essential that you know exactly what we are confronted with. We will appreciate your returning the two bills of Dr. Humphries after you have had an opportunity to inspect same. Sincerely yours, HHBarker :RH Vice President. enclosures