GIRL'S LOST GRIP.

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 300, 17 December 1923, Page 7

GIRL'S LOST GRIP.

HAND TWICE INJURED. CLAIM FOR COMPENSATION. Certain medical evidence of a most conflicting nature featured in a claim for compensation made by a young lady, Melba Muriel Williams (Mr. Singer), against the Royal Manufacturing Co., Ltd. (Mr. Bagnall), in the Arbitration Court this morning. The claim was made in respect of an injury sustained by plaintiff to her right hand, due to two accidents whilst employed by defendant company as a machinist. Plaintiff said that she returned to work after her right hand was injured in the first accident. An operation was 1 performed by Dr. Endletsberger. On April 29 last the right hand was again injured, and a further operation was performed, but ever since she had not been able to use her hand and could not return to work. Some compensation had been paid to her. Dr. T. Endletsberger deposed as to operations performed on plaintiff's right hand. In his opinion she would be able to use her hand almost normally, but she could not do so now. Cross-examined, witness thought that plaintiff's inability was not due to a neurotic condition. She could not grasp an instrument or working tool. Evidence that it was a mechanical impossibility for plaintiff to do her work was given by Dr. Julius Delapine. It might, in his opinion, be two years before she could resume her work. , For the defence Dr. J. B. MacDiarmid stated that plaintiff's hand was much better now that when he examined it several months ago. He thought the hand was -quite sound mechanically There was no evidence of adhesions. His Honor then questioned witness as to whether the condition of the hand was .due to a neurotic tendency. "It is, I suppose, doctor, neurasthenia, without 'swinging the lead's"—Yes, exactly. Dr. E. H. Milsom also gave evidence. Plaintiff was quite fit for work now. Apart from a little thickening of bone and the scarring he thought there was nothing wrong. In delivering judgment Mr. Justice Frazer said that it was not suggested that plaintiff was malingering. However, there might be a certain amount of neurasthenia in plaintiff's condition. The Court decided that compensation should be granted for nine months, at the rate of 13/6 a week for six months and three* months at 8/ per week, and costs £6 6/.