WORKER'S CLAIM

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 72, 27 March 1933, Page 3

WORKER'S CLAIM

AN INJURED KNEE

MEDICAL REFEREE TO ACT

The Arbitration. Court today was engaged in. hearing a claim for compensation, made by John Bird, waterside worker, against the Union Steam Ship Co., Ltd., for injuries received while in the employ of the company.

Mr. Justice JTrazer presided, and there were associated with him on the Bench Messrs. A. L. Monteith (workers' assessor) and ,W. Cecil Prime (employers' assessor). < Mr. E. P. Hay appeared for the plaintiff and Mr. C. fr. "White for the defendant company. According to the statement of claim, while assisting in the loading of frozen meat on July 12, 1932, the plaintiff was struck by'a carcass, and suffered injury to his left knee, which had totally incapacitated him from work up to the present time. He was advised that the disablement would continue for some time to come. He claimed the continuance of the weekly payments, or compensation computed into a lump sum, as provided by the Workers' Compensation for Accidents Act.

The statement o£ defence denied that total incapacity continued after November 2, 1932, and said that ' 'the plaintiff was able to do light work after that date. The plaintiff was paid compensation until November 2. The company offered to give the plaintiff half pay, 303 a week, until the partial incapacity disappeared, which 'was estimated to be six weeks after November 2., That offer was declined. The company had paid into- Court the sum of £12—eight weeks' compensation for partial disablement..

Medical evidence was heard as to the extent of the injury and its probable duration. The plaintiff had staged that after walking for half an hour there was still swelling of the knee. There was a difference of opinion on the part of the doctors as to whether or not there was still persistence of the. original injury.

■ Mr. White submitted that the meilical evidence showed that the plaintiff should 'in November have attempted to do light work, and his condition today was stationary because he had done nothing to assist in making his condition better; his present condition had been brought about by the man's erroneous belief that he was a seriously injured man, when there was really no organic injury. Counsel urged that the evidence did not justify the Court in making an award on the basis of what might be called neurasthenic awards. The evidence showed that there.was no neurasthenia in this case. It was not suggested • that' he was a malingerer, but was merely suffering from \ weakness of will.

Mr. Hay maintained that the injury still persisted and the plaintiff was not yet able to return to work. It might be well in this case to defer judgment until" a later date in order to determine whether the injury was still- observable at that time. ■

After briefly reviewing the evidence, his Honour said that in view of: the conflict of the medical testimony, the Court had come to the conclusion that this was a case which should be submitted to. a medical referee, and Dr. T. Duncan M. Stout would bo asked to let in that capacity. ' ,