CLAIM BY NURSE

Hokitika Guardian, 21 September 1932, Page 5

CLAIM BY NURSE

HEART INJURY FROM FEVER WHILE ON DUTY. (Per Press Association — Cc'jyright. ) Wellington, September 20. The Court of Appeal is hearing a case stated for its opinion by the Court of Arbitration, pursuant to Section 105 of the Industrial Conciliation and Arbitration Act, 1925. 1 Plaintiff is E.na May Storey, nurse, formerly cf Wellington; but now of Scotland. ’Defendant is the Wellington Hospital Board. From November, 1929, plaintiff was employed -as a probationer nur-e a-t the Wellington Hospital. On May 19, 1930, she commenced duty in the fever hospital, rand, contracting scarlet fever, was put in -the fever ward on June T. She remained in the hospital until August 1, then after two weeks’ leave reported ’ back for duties. -She was told her heart was affected ns the result of the -scarlet fever, and she was not fit for the work. 'She then went into a convalescent home, Bind at the end of -two months 'was told by Dr Ewen, medical superintendent of the Wellington Hospital, that sh© could not resume training as a nurSe, or do any strenuous work for a period of two or three years. Plaintiff’s salary was pgid to September 4, 1930, and she received free lodgings in the convalescent home until. October 28. In December, 1930, a writ wa-s issued on Storey’s behalf, claiming £l2 15s compensation, and a further sum for her partial incapacity and. loss of earning power. The defendant board, denied liability, and the question now raised for the answer of the Court of Appeal, is whether plaintiff, contracting scarlet fever and heart -injury consequent thl-ereon, suffered injury by an accident arising out of, -and in the course of her employment.

Opening the case, counsel for plaintiff 'said the basis of claim was compensation for the heart injury. But for that (injury, the claim would never have been brought. The question to be decided by the Court was whether the contracting of scarlet fever, by a nurse in a hospital, was injury by accident, arising out of and in course of employment. It was contended 'by him that infection by germ was an “accident” within the meaning of the Workers’ Compensation Act, and if it could be established the germ invaded her eystem during her employment, plaintiff was entitled to 'succeed/ Proof of the exact time of infection was unnecessary, and it was sufficient to establish that > reasonable, assumption was that that the infection took place during her forking hours. That was the only assumption open on the present ease. Counsel for the defendant beard ad. mitted that the disease-had-been contracted during the plaintiff’s employment, but submitted (that that fact was not sufficient to enable the plaintiff to succeed ; but that it necessary for her to establish that, surrounding the infection, there were some accidental features. The Nurse was aware that germs were present in large numbers in the hospital ward, and on going in there, without any accidental happening, she became infected. It was only by proving an accident that she had the cause of action, and that accident, or any accidental happening had not been established. If the Court found plaintiff was entitled to a decision it could not be limited to scarlet fever, but would embrace (every , infectious disease,- and would be of far-reaching con-equences. The Count, reserved its decision.