ARBITRATION COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 2 July 1932, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT

JUDGMENT .FOIL .PLAINTIFF. IN CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. Judgment for plainiJiffH-tp the extent of £285 4s fid less amounts already paid,: together with costs, was given, by the Arbitration Court at Hokit-ikp yesterday when Thomas James Furlong claimed' AMnp'ensation from the Hokitika Harbour Board, for injuries .■ received through falling through <a. platform, on which he was working into the Hokitika river. Continuing, his evidence, Dr, r Baxter Sft.u that as far as the shoulder' was concerned, theire would more'. ;,( than likely, be a permanent although perhaps slight, of tlies-’arm, the estimated loss being 30. to 40 per cent. He did not think the. aggravation of the heart was iso very great. In view of tire argument that the present condition was due to tl%i accident, he thought, that it. might- he the natural progress of the > disease.

Counsel for plaintiffAY hat- would you 1 put the aggregate, disabbity of the shouldCr at?—At between :.30? and 40 per cent.. Plaintiff’s heart; 'he considered was now fit enotiglr-for light work, and later, perhaps forisother.

Counsel You have heard•■the'mother evidence. Do you think plaintiff is malingering,?—No, 1' think.-Jiiepis- suffering from neurasthenia.' You think,,then, that this man can go back and do, what we .call.-an the West Conist, light wark.-A-I -think he can do light work. .t -a:;/. A* . Plaintiff has, been quite frrtnfe/in his dealings with you.—Quite. 1 1 Further oro-ss-examination;'-''Ensued between counsel and witness upon thla divergence of opinion between witness and Dr. Bevan, Brown.

Summing up,. His Honour, Mr Justice Frazer, said, that there was a certain amount of conflicting medical evidence, but there wps no eonflictioiii in the evidence concerning the* fjjots of the oasw. There was no doiibt tligt plaintiff was-not thd ma n be was | before, the accident. Part of the troqhle, was due to' his heart but the. troub’e r was pre-existent at the time -of- the*' accident, although it had fested itself at the time.e -Since 'then, however, the heart,condition had. failed very - pansiderably? fThe medical evidence diffe ed as t-o' the effect the accident had on'the hearth! Nevertheless he,.had the utmost'‘respect for the opinions of both doctors. -He concluded that the. reasonable''thing was to attribute the greater portion of the ■ heart trouble to flier accident, and discarding, the theory of the effort of the bronchitis-on the heart. There was Again a.j differencevpf opinion as to the .shoulder injufys- I ’but.-this was only a mfittgr on which ah opinion could be given. ■“AAIe have . got to--take the' man as" he is,” liepOiontinned. The man could . not i njftvafcdrisvuightii-to- the- extent. that ui sound' man could, while he. was also tampered hv his heart. Eleven .mohthis after the' accident, be had shown very little improvement, and • therefore it was not likely to imorove- further to any great extejnt. There was alliso the neurasthenic aspect of i the matter, and’'the Court " avr.s faced with''difficultyVin making'' jits? allowances. Tt was obvious ’iltaf she was entitled to full compensation jto date, and should receive cormwiratfon. for three, months from the'poiht' ' of. view of his neurasthenic condition. “AYe have tried to look at this matter, and be reasonable, from a West Coast point of view,” concluded; His Honour. ; [•