CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION

Taranaki Daily News, 1 December 1926, Page 9

CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION

UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES. MEDICAL OPINIONS DIFFER. By Telegraph.—Preu Association. Auckland, Last Night. “ An unusual point was involved in a compensation claim by Hurst against the Glenafton Collieries, Ltd., which was heard by the Arbitration Court to-day. Mr. P. J. O’Regan said the plaintiff met with an injury to his arm on October 22 last year. He was paid compensation for 23 weeks from that time at the rate of £3 15s a week. Early ill the present year the plaintiff saw Mr. Carrick Robertson, who stated that if an operation were performed the plaintiff would be able to return to work in two or three weeks’ time. There was delay in getting the plaintiff admitted to the Auckland Hospital, the position being that he belonged to the Waikato district, and it was contended that he should go to the Waikato Hospital. On the other hand, the doctors at Hamilton were of the opinion that an operation would not be successful. Plaintiff waited for some time to get into the Auckland Hospital, and then went to the Mater Misericordiae Hospital. Mr. Carrick Robertson performed an operation and, as predicted, the plaintiff was back at work in a few weeks’ time. The question was whether the plaintiff was entitled to compensation for the full time that he was out of work, and the claim for £B2 0s 2d was made. Mr. Inder said the company was prepared to be fair and reasonable, but could an injured employee choose bis own time, his own hospital, and his own doctor at the expense of an employer? It might go on for years. A man might decide to wait until a doctor returned from England, and such a position would be absurd. The delay in the present instance could not be attributed to the defendant company. It was necessary that a worker should take every possible step to minimise the amount of damages. Mr. Justice Frazer said it certainly was the duty of an injured worker to make every effort to reduce the amount of damage. That was a perfectly sound rale. The point was whether the facts in the present ease would square with that rule. An eminent surgeon had advised that an operation would be successful. On the other hand the doctors attached to the Waikato Hospital had different opinions and did not advise the operation. Plaintiff, as a reasonable man, would naturally shrink from an operation in a hospital where the medical men were plainly of the opinion that an operation would be of no use. His intention to wait to be operated upon by Mr. Carrick Robertson was perfectly reasonable under the circumstances, and it was the only thing he could do.

“If anyone of us was in a similar position we would certainly take the same view,” proceeded His Honour. “It is provided that a man shall not get compensation if he refuses to submit to reasonable treatment, and a man would be perfectly right if he refused to submit to treatment were there a dispute between the medical men. If a man refused under those circumstances to undergo an operation the Court would have to support him. Therefore “the Waikato Hospital and its medical men have to be ruled out as far as the plaintiff is concerned. The plaintiff endeavoured to get admitted to the Auckland Hospital, and when he found he was being delayed too long he took the bit in his teeth, went to the Mater Misericordiae Hospital, and spent £2l of his own money. His action has been perfectly bona fide in every way, and it cannot be held that he attempted to magnify his damages. “I am quite satisfied that is the correct view to take of the position. It would have been much worse for the defendant company had the plaintiff not had so much faith in Mr. Carrick Robertson.” . Judgment was given for the plaintiff for the full amount claimed, with £8 8s costs.