DOCTORS DIFFER.

Press, Volume LXIV, Issue 19332, 9 June 1928, Page 6

DOCTORS DIFFER.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION CLAIM. AWARD OF ARBITRATION COURT A case of singular interest was heard in the Arbitration Court yesterday when no fewer than five wellknown Christchurch doctors were called to give medical evidence on the condition of the plaintiff in a claim for compensation for injury, while a sixth, Dr. Robinson Hall, was present as a witness, although he was not called on to give evidence. In addition, statements were forwarded by two other well-known doctors, who were not able to be present. It is doubtful if there has been such a galaxy of medical experts in a Court of Law in Christchurch for many years past. The action was the outcome of an accident to Leonard Owen Bellette, carpenter, of luccarton, who received a ventral hernia while assisting to re move an iron girder weighing about a ton. This was on September 19th, 1927, and the plaintiff was incapacitated till December 31st, 1927, and, according to the statement, was still able to do only light work.fl* Mj Justice Frazer presided, and with him on the Bench were Messrs G. T. Booth and A. L. Monteith. Mr S. E. McCarthy appeared for the plaintiff and Mr R. A. Cuthbert for the defendant company. The Claim. The claim was for; (a) Such sum of money by way of compensation as to the Court may seem just, either as a lump sum or in the form of weekly payments; (b) in the alternative, a declaration of liability on the part of the defendant company; (c) such sum of money as to th< Court may seem just as compensation for medical expenses, (d) that the defendant company may be ordered to pay plaintiff's costs; (e) that plaintiff may have such further and other relief as to the Court may seem just. Counsel for the defendant said that the accident was admitted, and the only question was as to the plaintiffs present condition. He would point out that £ls had been offered the plaintiff <is compensation, but this had been rejected. Mr McCarthy, after relating the circumstances of the accident, said that the plaintiff had, as a result, been operated on for hernia. Plaintiff had received £4 a week from the date of the accident until December 6th. and then without any other reason than that he was quite fit for work, the defendant company ceased the payments. One of the defences would be that the defendant was malingering, but the Court*would see from his appearance that plaintiff was ill. He was earning an average of £6 5s at the time of the accident, and since his discharge from hospital had done light work for the Public Works Department. Where Doctors Differ. Plaintiff in evidence referred occasionally to a book which he held, and this aroused the curiosity of Mr Cuthbert, who asked what it contained. Witness said that it was only a record of domestic affairs He handed it over, and counsel read extracts from it showing that plaintiff had been working frequently. Mr Cuthbert stated that the book disclosed that during one period the plaintiff had done 108 hours' work. Mr Cuthbert then read a report by Dr. P S. Foster, which stated that the plaintiff had exaggerated the extent of his injuries. There was no reason why he should not work. . "What would you say if Drs. Foster, Acland, Gould, and Guthrie all said that you were quite all right and healthy P" counsel asked. # "That would be their opinion," witness said. "I suppose doctors differ. Mr Cnthhert then read another meiical report from Dr. Acland, stating that plaintiff was well enough to do light work and would in a short time be able to resume his former occupaEvidenoe was given by Dr. A. J Orchard, who said that he had known Bellette for about two years. He was a much different man now from what he was before the accident "He ib not the same Bellette," witness, added Witness expressed surprise when shown Dr. Foster's report and suggested that the explanation of the difference of opinion was that the other doctors had not known Bellette before the accident. He was of opinion that the plaintiff I was suffering from a form of neurasthenia as a result of this accident and I this had a mental effect on him. Witness was cross-examined on this point, but he held to his opinion. He was supported in a measure by Dr. J. W. Crawshaw. Dr. C. S. Cantrell also testified for the plaintiff He agreed with Dr Orchard that there was an element of neurasthenia, but added that there was also an element of exaggeration. Dr.' John Guthrie was called by Mr Cuthbert. Witness said that he did not agree that it was a case of neurasthenia. Neurasthenia was a shadow thing which made the patient timorous and afraid. Witness had always found Bellette to be extremely aggressive and even troublesome as a patient in hospital. Dr. O. Hamilton Gould expressed the conviction that the plaintiff was a malingerer. The case seemed to be whether he was a neurasthenio or a malingerer, and the evidence pointed to his not being a neurasthenic. The Verdict. Both counsel addressed the Bench at some length and the Court retired to consider its decision. On returning his Honour said that the case was one which presented some rather unusual features. Fortunately the way was cleared by the defence being prepared to admit that the hernia was caused by the accident and was not a pre-existing condition. There was difficulty in determining whether the plaintiff was incapacitated, and. if so, whether it was attributable to the accident or to something else. The plaintiff relied practically altogether on a condition of neurasthenia. Physically he had no claim to rely on and he was thrown back on the claim of neurasthenia. It had to be observed that plaintiff was not a typical neurasthenic. "We have some hundreds of neurasthenics passing through this Court.," his Honour said, "and we know what to expect. The plaintiff is unduly suspicious, unduly aggressive, and is far from frank and shows a marked tend ency to hedge with counsel and to conceal his earnings since January, We don't know yet how much he has earned since then. But somehow he does not appear to us to be a malingerer. There does seem to be a nervous element or an element of mental instability. He has since January 17th been working, and one does not find that in the ■ordinary malingerer. The ordinary malingerer, or lead-swinger as he is called, avoids work as if it were the plague. We can't get away from the conclusion that he has been trying to, work, but for some obscure reason —a mental one. no doubt—he doesn't think he can extend himself and do a heavy day's work. He has got to get it into his head (and he probably has by now) that his abdominal muscles are really as good as new by now. It is not a case where he has brooded over his condition and refused to try." His Honour went on to say that the I plaintiff had proved to the Courts satisfaction that he was at present unable to do a full day's work and a hard day's work, that being due to a nervous condition of some kind accentu-

ated or produced by the accident. Having decided that it was not a physical trouble the plaintiff was entitled to compensation. Ordinarily to recover physically from an operation of this kind three months were allowed and the Court would give that and a further fortnight. On top of that would be another four weeks at half rates Plaintiff had been able to work since January 17th and had been earning 18s 6d against 22s 6d a day at the Opera House, and the compensation, from January 17th would be twothirds of his weekly loss—l6s. The total compensation would be £35 4s. In view of the smallness pf the amount he would not allow more than £5 5s costs. The expenses for each of tliree medical witnesses would be £2 2s. Addressing the plaintiff his Honour said that the Court had accepted his view that he was not quite all right, but he advised him to bear in mind everything the doctors had said. "You are as good as new," he added, "and you needn't be scared of doing heavy work. Buck up. It is not unusual for a man to set the idea that he is a total loss. Set your teeth and get into it and never mind if it does hurt a bit at first."