INJURY TO EYE

Evening Star, Issue 19787, 10 February 1928, Page 4

INJURY TO EYE

MINER'S COMPENSATION CLAIM ARBITRATION COURT HEARS CASE ■ # The sum of £6OO was involved in a Kaitangata coal miner’s claim for compensation which came before the Arbitration Court this morning, the facts being that Alexander Forrest (Mr W. G. Hay) claimed this amount from the proprietors of the Taratu coal mines (Mr J. B. Callan) because of an eye injury, alleged to have been received by the plaintiff while in the defendant’s employ. In the claim it was stated that in tho month of April, 1920, the plaintiff, while employed as a. coal miner by the defendant, met with an injury to his right eye, as the result of a piece of coal sparking while he was using his pick, and hitting him. The plaintiff continued in defendant's employment until April, 1927, by which time the eye had became so badly affected that ho consulted a medical man, who advised him that the eye was seriously injured, and the sight permanently lost. The average weekly earnings of the plaintiff at the time were £5 a week. On June 16, 1927, plaintiff gave to defendant notice in writing of the accident, and he had not given earlier notice for the reason that ho did not know' that the blow had caused serious injury until that time. P.lnintiff claimed tho recovery of £6OO for compensation under the Workers’ Compensation Act, tho costs of the action and such further relief that the court deemed fit. The statements set out in defence were to the effect that tho defendant denied that plaintiff had at any date met with an accident arising out of his employment with the company. Plaintiff was off work on April 26, 1927,, and for ten days in May, hut defendant had no knowledge of the reasons for the absences. If plaintiff did receive any such injury he should have known long before April, 1927, that it was, or might he, serious, and whether or not he had any such knowledge before that date ho did not make any claim upon defendant as soon as he knew or ought to have known about it. Defendant had been prejudiced by tho failure of the plaintiff to give this notice. The failure, it was stated, was not occasioned by any reasonable excuse.

Mr Hay said that at the time of the accident was not regarded as being serious, and the trouble did not develop until about twelve months later, when for a few days the eye became inflamed. However, _ plaintiff bathed it, and it was not until the following February that be became aware of Hashes of light passing across his eye; still, ho did not think the matter was serious. In April be began to suffer from headaches, and finally he consulted Hr Daniels, who sent him to Dr Biggs in ’Balclntha, who in turn sent him to the Dunedin Hospital, where he was examined by Dr Hall on Way 10 and again at a later date by his (Mr Hay’s) request. Dr Daniels had advised plaintiff to take a fortnight off work, but when he came to Dr Hall he was told that nothing could be done for tho eye, and that lie had better go hack to work and make the best of it.. Ultimately, lie followed Dr Daniels advice. On the same day as that on which tho accident occurred he had told a man called Burleigh about it. At about the end of May, 1927, alter he had seen the doctor, he related the matter to Hadcroft, who told him he would see Burleigh, and if Burleigh confirmed the facts he would put in for. insurance. Dr Daniels had submitted a report on June 1(> which stated that the eye was two-thirds gone. Tho insurance company said that nothing could ho done, because action had not been started in proper time

Evidence to this effect was given by plaintiff. Dr A. J. Hall, in giving evidence, stated that plaintiff had lost fully 90 per cent, of lu's sight, duo to detachment of the retina, an injury usually caused by violence. !u that singe, the trouble was usually irremediable, and he told Forrest that nothing could ho done for it. Plaintiff had complained of flashes of light, and in August he had complained of headaches, which no doubt were due to a. nervous condition brought about by the eye injury. The tendency would he for the eye to become worse in the future, and plaintiff was industrially useless. Questioned by Mr Cnllan, Dr Hall gave further professional evidence concerning tho damage clone' to plaintiff’s eye. Dr Bathgate, tho next witness called, gave similar evidence. James Burleigh, laborer, said he knew the part of the mine very well where plaintiff had had his accident. _ The day Forrest came out of the mine a bit early be said bis place was (finished and that he had got. a smach in. the eye. Witness was checking tho men out that day. He did not look at the eye. To Mr C'allan: He did not report the accident, because there was no book to put it in. The usual procedure was for anyone who was hurt to return homo ami get a doctor's certificate to send in.

William Neill, another witness, said that plaintiff had told him ho had received an injury to his eye. Jfc was at the time of the accident, on the way home. Latterly he complained about his eye, saying that he had Hashes across" it, and that he suffered from headaches. * (Proceeding.)