COMPENSATION CASES

Press, Volume LXXIX, Issue 23970, 10 June 1943, Page 3

COMPENSATION CASES

NO PROVISION FOR REHEARING AMENDMENT TO LAW SUGGESTED From Our Parliamentary Reporter WELLINGTON, June 8. The opinion that the statute law should be altered to provide for the granting of rehearings in Compensation Court cases where new and effective evidence became available which was not available at the date of the original hearing, was expressed by the Labour Bills Committee in a report to the House of Representatives. The report dealt with an application by Harry Eagles, waterside worker, Auckland, for redress for an injury suffered by him in the course of his employment. The committee reported that as the law stood the decision of a Workers’ Compensation Court was final and that there was no appeal to any other court and no provision for a rehearing. In the discussion that followed the presentation of the report it was explained that when the Compensation Court heard the case there was a difference of opinion among medical experts whose evidence was referred to an umpire. The case was decided in the light of medical knowledge at that time. Research in the United States had completely altered the position, because it had been established that coronary thrombosis could be caused by a sudden strain such as Eagles claimed he had had. If the medical evidence now available had been available at the time of the hearing it was considered that Eagles svould have won his case and been granted compensation. It was said that the reason why there was no provision for appeals or rehearings was to prevent delay in workers receiving the compensation to which they were entitled.