ARBITRATION COURT

Hokitika Guardian, 5 July 1932, Page 3

ARBITRATION COURT

(Per Press Association — Copyright.)

GREYMOUTH, July 4,

The Greymouth sitting of the Arbitration Court, Mr Justice Frazer, Mr A. L. Montieth (employees’ assessor), and Mr W. Cecil Prime (employers’ assessor), was commenced yesterday.

William Preston, of Dobson, coalminer, claimed from the Grey Vahey Collieries Ltd. (1) The sum of £4 weekly from August 31, 1431, until the present trial. (2) Such further compensation by way of lump .sum as may be shown as reasonable, and (3) The costs of the case, and such further or other relief as may in the c'rcumstances be just.

The statement of claim was that on Decerhber 12, 1930, when employed by the defendant; company, plaintiff bad his right foot crushed between the buffer of an empty fuck, and a sleeper, in consequence of which he was totally disabled ; that his average weekly . earnings calculated in accordance with the . provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Ad: nas not iei-.s than £6 6s; that he was paid comsation at the rate of £4 per week for 37 weeks ended August 31, 1931, totalling £148; that he was offered and accepted £2O in full settlcmon'z,. but without legal or medical advice; that he is still totally disabled as the result of the accident, qnd that the defendant company denies liability to pay additional compensation.

Th e defence admitted that a sum of £2O wor; offered aim accepted in full, settlement, but it denied that the said settlement was made without legal or medical advice on behalf of the plainbiff. . The defence denied that plaintiff was t.tailly disabled as a .result of the accident, or that he was ' disabled in l any way, and further, denied Lability for any additional compensation and said that the plaintiff had been paid 'he full amount of compensation due to him arising out of th e accident. Plaintiff was represented by Mr P. J. O’Regan, and the defendant company by Mr W.'F. Tracy.

Plaintiff,' in evidenc© said that he signed the agreement to take £2O, when he heard a medical lefczer from Christchurch read to him by the managed of the mine, stating that lie Would be' fit to work again in two months.

To Mr Tracy: Dr Wilkinson came into The office just as :zhe arrangement was being made, and asked witness if he was signing off altogether. Witness replied that he was short of money. 'He had not tried to work since the accident, as he considered he was unfit. Mr Tracy handed in the agreement for the £2O, signed by plaintiff, and by Dr Wilkinson- as a witness. DR MOORE’S EVIDENCE. Dr J. F. C. Moore, Medical. Super-b-ten dent of the Grey River Hospitals'id that h e firrt saw the plaintiff on [November 23, 1931, and he. then said that: he was suffering severe pain between the two metatarsal bones of the right foot. He was unable to w-lk fa long without the development of pain, which necessitated real:. -An X-ray examination. revealed that the foot had been broken, but that it had set well. There was then a tendency to flat, fodb in the right foot. Flat-foot was fuliy developed in the left foot, but this was the result of' a horse fall-ng on him at the war. This foot was painful, according to plaintiff, and to protect that foot,-, he. used th e right font more. Thus when ho received the injury, he was disabled, an that he could not then use the right foot, as a. protection for the left. He examined plaintiff again ion -July 2, and found :hat flat foot was developing. He considered that another fchre© to six months would elapse before plaintiff aouild be quite fit again. That wou.J be when the flat foot in the right foot bad fully developed, and zhere would then be no move pain. At present he was 100 per cent, disabled'.-. 1 l.Mr o’Hogan handed in medical reports made on plaintiff’s foot by Drs A. W. Wilkinson and J. F. C. Moore.

An examination of the loot was then made by Dus Moore and Will in tlie presence of the Court.

'Dr J. Will, Christchurch, said thao as the* result of an examination he made, with Dr Wilkinson, of plaintiff’s ■foot,, in July, 1931; he gave it his opinion that plaintiff would be fit for work in two months. As the result of further examinations at Christchurch, formed tlh 6 opinion that the plaintiff would • have been muoh better' at work. There was no displacement of the bone ends and no interference with the mechanism of the foot as a weight-bearing organ, consequent on the accident. He considered it quite likely that, in. some psychological way, the effect of the previous injury to the other foot, had caused the plaintiff. to carry on as he had. He was quite satisfied that plaintiff won'd have been-alright, if he had gone back i/V work as suggested after he signed o*

To Mr 'O’Begaii: He disagreed with Dr Moore, when the latter su'd tha: flat-foot was developing in the right foot.

Mir Tracy handed in reports mad? from time to time since the accident, by Dir Will, Dr P. S. Foster, and Dr ri. T. Aclaud, of Christchurch. He • aid tU it the doctors concerned all stated that plaintiff had suffic'd no disability since the time of , the Last payment. After consideration of the case, Li Justice Frazer ,said that there was a conflict of medical opinion as to whoMi.pi- .flat-foot was developing in the right foot, but -after seeing the foot examined, and after considering th

medical reports, the Court had como to . the conclusion that there was no flat-foot in the right foot and that •that condition was not developing. They . had concluded that plaintiff's trouble was purely psychical, and in such -a case, there was no provision ill the Adz, for further compensation. Judgment would be given for defend ants with £8 8s costs, and £2 2s | medical witness’s expenses, JUDGMENT BY CONSENT. Judgment by consent was entered ' in the claim, Edward Keenan .(Mr P. jJ. O’Regan) v. Grey Valley Coteries ' Ltd., (Mr AY. F. Tracey) ior £l2O and I costs £5 ss, in addition to compensaI lion already paid. 'i’he claim arose out of an accident at the Dobson mine on ! Jne 5, 1931 when Keenan jarred his right hand, following which the middle finger was amputated. Thu claim was in respect of the loss of the finger; and disablement caused •thereby. MINER'S CLAIM SUCCEEDS. ■ George Graham-Conrior . (Mr P. J. O’Regan) claimed weekly payments as unpaid compensation,' from H. M. The King (Mr F. A. Kitchingham.) Tne petitioner, in his statement of claim, said that oil April 16, 1981, whilst employed at the, State coal mines, he was injured by an accident arising out of, and in the course of his employment, in that lie damaged Jiis right knee, in consequence whereof he was totally disabled from working until January 23, 1932. Plaintiff stated that he was paid compensation at the rate of £4 per week, until November 14, 1931. Suppliant claimed ten weekly payments of £4 (£4O), and costs.

His Honor giving judgment, said that it was gathered by'' the Court that tlig action had been deterred largely for the purpose of getting the decision of the Court on the question as to how far a claim might be prejudiced if claimant objected to under- - go medical treatment. The Act was dear on the point. No compensation was payable if any unreasonable refusal were made to submit to treatment. If suppliant’s condition had been aggravated or the period of incapacity prolonged .by ' refusing to comply with instructions, then he would not have been entitled to compensation, and the Court would assess his claim up to the time to which it was would otherwise have been incapacitated. The first difficulty appeared to have arisen over the use of the leg iron. Suppliant had taken it for granted that, after a fortnight,' he was to take it off He went to Christchurch and wanted to go to the races. He did not want to he wearing the leg iron so took it off. It could not he said that lie had acted unreasonably. Suppliant had stated quite candidly that he thought Dr. Moore told him he could take the leg iron off. Dr. Will told suppliant to wear the leg iron for six or eight weeks, and he wore it more, keeping the instructions well in his mind. .U- e only stopped wearing the leg iron owing to a, misunderstanding. How-' ever, did this prolong incapacity? The answer was no. Dr Moore had stated it did not. Dr. Moore did not tell snppliant to put the leg iron on agam. and therefore he must have been satisfied that the leg was-progressing satisfactorily. Suppliant was not declared fit for work until January 23, throe weeks after the date suggested by Dr. Will. There was no evidence to indicate that the misunderstanding had an v deterrent effect on suppliant’s leg and there was nothing to enable the Court:, to say the defence was entitled to have the claim reduced. Judgment would he entered for suppliant for the amount claimed £4O, with solieitoi s and witness’ expenses 12s.