UNUSUAL CASE

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 75, 30 March 1933, Page 13

UNUSUAL CASE

CHROME ULCERATION

WORKER'S CLAIM

An unusual compensation, case engaged the attention,of the Arbitration Court today. • Eobcrt Arthur Pilkington, an, electroplate):, claimed compensation from Whitelaw Bros., Ltd.j clectroplatprs, for disability caused by chromo uleeration alleged to have been contracted while ho was in the employ of the defendants. Mr. Justice Frazer presided, and thero were associated with him on the Bench Messrs. A. li. Monteith. (workers' assessor) and, W. Cecil Prime (employers'assessor).. Mr. B. O. Cahill appeared for plaintiff, and Mr. G. G. Watson and Mr. W. P. Shorland for the defendants.

According to, the statement of claim, the plaintiff on August 22, 1930, contracted chromo ulceration through coming in contact with chromium solution in the course of his employment. The consequence, it was stated, was that ho was totally, disabled until he returned to work on November 17, 1930. It was alleged that the disease recurred at different periods, causing him to cease work on those occasions. The plaintiff was given partial employment at a different class of work. The defendants paid him sums amounting to £171 7s 6d. A claim was made for further compensation for the period of total incapacity. " ' ■ ■ For the defence it was asserted that the plaintiff had not suffered from chronic ulceration.

In4iis evidence the plaintiff said that after mixing the chrome solution„■ he was attacked by a running rash on the fade and with blisters on his hands and arms. He applied sulphate of lime,, which had been provided on the premises for use in such cases. The running sores continued, and- he sought medical advice and was. treated by a doctor. He was never free-from bandages from 1930 until just before ■Christmas, 1932. The plaintiff described the recurring, attacks of the disease, and: said that he continued under xtedical treatment during the renewed attacks. The disease caused much itching, and he' could not sleep, the running sores often had to be treated three or four times a: day. :Jlo- also ' frequently vomited.' The plaintiff asserted that he was most careful in dealing with the, chromium) solution; ■', '•■ '' ; .■■ I In rbply to Mr. Watson, the plaintiff said he had been mixing the solution1 for five -months prior to his.-first attack. 'Anne Pilkington, wife of the plaintiff, gave corroborative evidence in re-.: ffard to the running.sores and vomiting from which the plaintiff suffered-dur-: hi" the period of his illness. ■; ■; Dr. (JrahamE'obertson said,that some six months ago he examined the plain;tiff who was Suffering from pustular dermatitis,. Chrome poisoning might produce dermatitis without: ulceration. He regarded an acute; weepine dermatitis as an'iilcerative'process.., Dr Hi C. Paulke said' he first' saw: the plaintiff on August ,29/= 1932; there was a rash; bii his-facb and a few spots in the .bends of the. elbows- At, -that time the plaintiff said he had fits vof vomiting. Witness*watched him take breakfast that morning, and noticed that he immediately vomited; . thought, that the vomiting must be at:, tributed to an unusual cause—such as a'form of poisoning. Pilkinßton;s health was bad owing to tho condition of his stomaeh;he,. cOuldnot work; m his present condition. ;! ',;■,. Mr., Watson: Do you accept the evidence of lay witnessos in preference to thn evidence of a medical practitioner, who attended the case during a long period1? If that medical attendant says tba<t no* ulcers' vfon observable, would you accept the lay evidence -m preference to that of the doctor? Dr, Faulkc: The medical^attendant might not have seen ,the patientJoften enough. I much accept positive evidence against negative evidence. ~: •'■...■ I-. (Proceeding;) ';;V ,; ■■;-.