INJURIES TO WORKERS.

Auckland Star, Volume XLIV, Issue 179, 29 July 1913, Page 2

INJURIES TO WORKERS.

ALLOWANCE FOB MEDICAL TEEATMHTT. CLAIM BY A DOCTOK. AGAINST TAUPTRI COAL MIXES. Wnat was in the nature of a test eaee under an amendment lv t'ne Workers' Compensation Act was brought in the Magistrate's Court tbJe morning, before Mr Kettle, S.M., by Dr. R. C. MeDiaxmid, of Hujitly I Mr O. M. Xenoon), against the Taupiri Coal Mines, Ltd. ('Mr C. J. Tnnke), the claim being for a sum of £L

Mr Newton explain-ed that the case came under that section of the amended Act which provided that whore a worker was incapacitated for a longer period than 14 days through any accid«nt, he ■was entitled to receive, in addition to any compensation due, a sum not exceeding i. s l for medical expenses. The sectian. which dated from October, 1011, further provided that any person having .1 claim for sendees rendered in connection with an accident was entitled to recover from the employer direct, up to the. £1 limit. The plaintiff, counsel stated, was medical officer to the Waikato Medical and Accident Society, and in lhat capacity he a-Ttend-ed a miner named norace Pierce on 14th May last, for an injured knee. The patient was under Jiis care till May 31. and the plaintiff made a charge, of £], which he was told to rpeover from the Taupiri CoaJ Mines, Ltd. He forwarded an account -to the company, but they denied liability. The present clahu was small, but the plaintiff had a large number of others exactly similar, and lie would probably receive about £200 a year from I Uip company in this way if the present claim was eure.eeeful.

The plaintiff, in the course of crossexamination, stated that h-e vrae paid a fixed salary by the s-oeiety, under an agreement (produced), but he was entitled to make charges in certain cases. In April last a supplementary agreement was signed, by which he was empowered to charge £1 in casee of accidents to employees of the Tiupiri Coal Mines, provided the patient in» incapacitaied for more than 14 daye. It further required him to keep a duly qualified practitioner as an assistant. He had made several applications to the tlefenda-nte for payment, but they had denied liability.

The witness was cross-<?:ta.nimed at length upo:: the arrangement bet-ween himself ami hie Bon, ■who -was hie assistant. He maintained that no partnership existed, as his son was paid a fixed snm for his services.

Air Tunks read a demand for payment made by tlio doctors against the defendants., in which it was stated that his son had attended certain of the eases. Counsel contended that the language of the demand indicated that a partnership existed.

The witness explained that he had sue;jested to the company that he should be employed at a iixed salary in order that the trouble of numerous claims might be avoided, hut they would not agree to this course.

' ilr. Tunkis: Yon wanted to be a servant of TDoth the company and the benefit society.

Mr. Tunkfi submitted that the defendants -were not liable. The Act provided that the worker should lie. allowed his medical expenses up to £1, but prior to the supplementary agreement hie medical expenses were nil. as he gnt the services of the doctor free. He was lioirhtfu! if the eefond agreement could make the members of the Association liable for the payments to the doctor, and possibly it was Tiot binding in the matter, tie contended that the whole arrangement was made with the object of getting more out of the company, which already wns compelled to pay over :C>oo a year into the miners' relief fund. The indications were that the plaintiff's son was ar partner, and this affected the plaintiff's demaDds in resnect of attendantes'by his son. The case is proceeding.