A CURIOUS CASE

Press, Volume LV, Issue 16694, 1 December 1919, Page 5

A CURIOUS CASE

HYSTERICALLY DEAF AND BLIND, j Tho Arbitration Court at Wellington on Thursday heard a compensation claim brought by Alfred Morris, tram conductor, against tho Wellington City Corporation. Mr Justice Stringer presided. Mr P. J. O'Rcgan appeared for tho plaintiff, and Mr J. O'Shea (city solicitor) for tho defendant corporation. Tho plaintiff alleged that on June 18th, 15>18, while on duty, lie fell from u car and struck his head on the kerb of tho adjacent footpath. Hie fall no injured the back of his head that lie became totally, and, as he claimed, incurably blind. Ho sought to rccover from tho corporation weekly com pennation from date of the irjury to the date of the trial, and such lump sum as the Court might think reasonable. Tho defendant corporation admitted merely that tho defondant had suffered injury, nnd that it way entitled to pay liim half wages during his incapacity. Mr O'Regan said that the plaintiff was totally blind for nine months after the accident. At tho end of nine months ho said that he could see with his left eye, but not with his right. He claimed to be deaf in the right ear, also by reason of the accident. Tho case was ono in which there seemed to be no evidence of organic injuty. Tho state of the plaintiff was probably due to hysteria. Dr. C. M. Hector, medical practitioner. stated that ho had tested tho plaintiff for deafness. Plaintiff appeared to he suffering from total deafness in the right ear. and slight deafness in the left ear. Witness approached a lighted match so near to plaintiff's rrrlit eye as to singe the plaintiff's liair. Plaintiff did not appear to notice the match at all. Ho gave signs of nn hysterical condition, nnd n bad state of tho nerves generally. Plaintiff's condition was likely to improve with time. To Mr O'Shea-: I think there is just a suspicion that the plaintiff can see with his right eye. Mr O'Regan: Tn cases in which there is hysteria or neurasthenia, as the result of an accident, there is always a tendency on tho part of the patient to exaggerate, is there not?—" Witness: "There is." Then you do not suggest that the plaintiff is deliberately malingering? —"No." Dr. IT. C. Faulke read to the Court notes of examinations he had made of the plaintiff. He thought that, tho plaintiff was suffering from hysteria. Such cases generally recovered, thouch it was impossible to suggest when the plaintiff was likely to recover. Witness believed that tho plaintiff was convinced of being blind in tho right eye. Tho plaintiff before the accident had been a bright boy, eager to earn what monev ho could for tho support of his mother and tho younger members of the family. Dr. P. F. Mc-Evedy was called by Mr O'Shea. He agreed that plaintiff showed symptoms of hysteria. The sudden recovery of the sight of the left eye showed that there was no organic lesion causing the blindness. Apart from tho nervous state of the plaintiff, one was inclined to suspect a little malingering. The patient, ho believed, was not conscious of malingering. The malingering was that generally associated with such cases. Tho deafness, as well as the blindness, was duo to hysteria. "An extraordinary case," observed his Honour, sotto voce, as the Court began to consider its decision. In -lcliverimj judgment, his Honour said that the case was as difficult as anv the Court had ever had to consider. The medical eridenco had been ot littlo assistance, except in showing that the case was one of combined hysteria and neurasthenia. The doctors agreed that there wag no organic troublo in the eye. and it seemed obvious that tho plaintiff would recover the sight of his right eye in the course of time. There might be some permanent trouble in tho ear. but that matter did not seem verv clear. Tho Court had had very little experience of liys- ! teria. It could only make what was ! more or less a shot in tho dark. The I plaintiff would be awarded a total of £153 3s 2d.