COMPENSATION CLAIM.

Auckland Star, Volume LV, Issue 220, 16 September 1924, Page 7

COMPENSATION CLAIM.

HUNTLY MINES CASE. RESULT OF HEAVY LIFT. I VERDICT FOR PLAINTIFF. I A claim for compensation brought by j William Matheson Kiggins, coal miner, ot Huntly, against tue Taupiri Coai AUnes, Ltd., was before tbe Arbitration Court tliis morning. Mr. Justice Frazer : presided, associated with Him being Mr. J \V. Scott and Mr. 11. Hunter, assessors. ! Mr. P. J. O'Kegan appeared for tbe plaintiff, and ilr. H. I. Richmond for I the defendant company. j la bis statement 'of claim plaintiff I set out that on January !) he met with an accident while in the defendants' : employ, as a result of which lie suffered j umbilical hernia, and is now totally j disabled. He admitted suffering a simijlar injury in June, 1919, on the site (of the latter injury. He now claimed J a weekly payment of £3 8/9 as from i the date of the accident, further compensation, and costs. J The defence nvas a denial of the a«cijdent in January, but admitted that J plaintiff had sustained umbilical hernia jin 1919. If plaintiff was now incapaci- . tated it was not due to the accident alleged. In outlining the case for the plaintiff . Mr. O'Rcgan said it presented some unusual features. Plaip.tiff was a .deputy-miner, and was employed by the I defendant company up till January last. ion July 1,1919, he'went; into the HamilI ton hospital suffering from umbilical ■ hernia. Two days later an operation ; was performed, and on August 7. 191!), he discharged as cured. He reisumed work with the company, and remained •at work till just after the .Christmas holidays, 1923. ■■ At that time he was employed as a winchman. On January 9 seven full skips of coal i became derailed, the weight of each 6kip, with the coal, being about l"cwt. j Three men, including Riggins, profceeded to put the skips back on the J rails, and were on the sixth skip when Riggins, while lifting, suddenly felt an Acute pain and knocked off. This : occurred about 8 p.m. on a Wednesday, .and plaintiff continued to work until the following Monday, when he felt so I ill that lie consulted Dr. McDiarmid, who I ordered his removal to the hospital. An operation was performed, and since his discharge he had been unable to do any work. Evidence on the lines of counsel's opening was given by the plaintiff, William . Matheson Risgins, who said that two .' years after the first accident lie joined the Druids' Lodge. The reason he remained at work from the Wednesday when the accident occurred till the following Monday was because lie had a wife and family to keep, and he wanted to stop at work if possible. Dr. R. C. McDiarmid, in evidence, said that the second rupture was much move/likely to arise through heavy lift;, ing than from an ordinary progression of the., original case of hernia. I For the defence, Mr! Richmond called Dr. Geo. W. Gower. medical superintendent ofi the Hamilton Hospital.—Witi ness said lieSremembcrcd Riggins' coming ! to' the hospital in January last, and per- ' formed an operation upon him on March 21. Witness did not remember Riggins saying anything about an accident, and his opinion was that it was simply a case of a scar left by the first operation I having given away: * The abnormal size, ■I position, everything, pointed to.the progressive, enlargement of the hernia. To Mr. O"Regan: It was quite possible the 'heavy lifting might have affected the ! bulge left-by the first operation. In his ; Opinion the second operation was highly ' j successful; and Riggins should be quite l able to work, although perhaps not at j heavy work. , . j Mr. Richmond submitted that the cvi- ; dence for plaintiff was exaggerated. It seemed as though the trouble had been ; growing all the time, and when the I climax came plaintiff put it down to a j strain. Tbe fact that lie went on working was quite consistent with his submission <of exaggeration. - ' In giving judgment, his Honor said that, while the evidence of Dr. Gower . was perfectly plain, alnd in medical parlance there had been a recurrence of the original ■ trouble, as a matter of law it was a fresh accident. There was cvi- . dence that on January 9 plaintiff was working as .usual, suffering nothing, bin through heavy lifting suffered a strain. It did not seem, from the evidence, that the gradual .growth reached a climax, 1 but rather that the climax was, brought j about by the heavy lifting, when it appeared there was a sudden breakina away of the adhesions of the original operation. Judgment would be for plain. , tiff, and compensation allowed at 37 . weeks at full compensation, 13 weeks at ! half compensation, with costs £9 9/, and ! witnesses' expenses, the total amount of I compensation being £138 13/l^d.