MINER'S CLAIM.

Auckland Star, Volume LXIX, Issue 45, 23 February 1938, Page 8

MINER'S CLAIM.

INJURY TO FOOT.

EVIDENCE OF DOCTOR.

MORE COMPENSATION ASKED.

Further compensation for an injury suffered to his foot on July 8, 1935, when he was in the employ of Pukemiro Collieries, Limited, was claimed in the Second Arbitration Court to-day by Alexander Greenhorn, coal miner, of Pukemiro. The claim was heard by Mr. Justice Hunter and his two associates, Mr. W. E. Anderson (employers' representative) and Mr. A. W. Croskery (union representative).

Plaintiff was represented by Mr. C. J. O'Regan, of Wellington, and Mr. J. Hore represented the defendant company.

In his statement of claim plaintiff stated that he suffered a puncture wound to the left foot in the course of his employment. In consequence of this he suffered serious and permanent disablement of his left leg and his range of employment was permanently curtailed.

Plaintiff stated that he had been paid weekly compensation, amounting to £205 10/, over a period of 72 weeks, after which compensation had been discontinued. It was submitted that the defendant company admitted that plaintiff was entitled to further compensation, but that the parties were unable to agree on the amount.

'Weekly payment of £2 17/1 from November 24, 1930, to the date of hearing was claimed, and also such further compensation by lump sum as might be considered reasonable by the Court. The defence admitted that plaintiff had been injured in the course of his employment and that he had been disabled in consequence. It was denied, however, that the injury had curtailed plaintiff's range of employment, and claimed that the present total disability of the patient, if it existed (which was denied), was due entirely to neglect to exercise the foot, to refusal to accept work of any kind and to brooding over the effects of the accident.

Medical evidence regarding the present state of plaintiff's foot was given this morning by Dr. W. C. McCaw, who 6tated that the nature of the injuries suffered' would preclude further underground work, as contact with hidden objects would cause pain. There were other types of work that plaintiff would be able to perforin efficiently and without discomfort, however, qlthough the fact that plaintiff limped might cause employers to doubt his cajAbilities.

Dr. McCaw said that plaintiff was not a neurotic type and he did not consider he would brood over the accident.

(Proceeding.)