INJURY TO EYE.

Press, Volume LXVI, Issue 20088, 18 November 1930, Page 4

INJURY TO EYE.

| -* - - f j Compensation granted. L CONFLICT OF MEDIC.\I. 11 FAJDENCE. i; ' i! While Frederick Jost-pli Kobertwjn j was working a la the at Anderson's, ? .Ltd., on July 12th., 2927, a f.ma!! spliu- ; ter or steel ilew jiit'J right, eye. Al- \ leging disablement, through injury, Rob- ! trisoa claimed compensation in the Ar- | biiraiioTi Court yesterday. He was | awarded approximately £63, with costs. Mr Justice Frazer presided aud with j him were Mr W. Cecil Prime, employers' ! assessor, and Mr A- - T - Monteith, workj ers' assessor. I For Robert fori. Mr \V. K. Lasceiles i appeared, wliilc Mr C. 8. Tliomas reprcj satited Anderson's, Ltd. ! Xo fixed sum was mentioned the [ statement of claim, the Court being | asked to assess compensation. Plaintiff's Claim. j Plaintiff held that, as a result, of the i injury, he had been incapacitated for j !he following periods: July 12th to SepI t ember 27th, 1027; February 3rd to | March 6tli, 1925; October 3rd to OctoI ber 17th, 1929; December 4th, 192!», ito January sth, 1930. At other times since the accident, and before December 4th, 1929, he had continued to work |as a turner. From January 6th to May j Jst'n, 1930, ho had been employed by j Anderson's as an engineer's assistant j at the rate of £4 4s 6d a week. | On July 16th, 1928, the two parties i had entered into an agreement that Robertson should receive nominal compensation at the rate of one penny a, ) week, until June 21st, 1930, or until a i variation was made. ; Ilis former employers had paid £9 I.ls ' 9d medical and hospital expense?, and ! il- 13s 9d legal expenses. Loss of Status. > Mr Lasceiles said that, as a. result of j the injury, Robertson had lapsed from j being a workman of great skill, to an I unskilled labourer, for now ho was just ! "pottering about" on his mother's farm | at Marshland. | Robertson stated in evidence that, j since IPlis, bo had worked at Andorj son's. His duties as a turner had nee<<si sitated much skill. He had earned as : much an £lO .10s a week, aver- | aging about £o 15s. Before the accident his eyes had been perfect. Efforts j had been made to draw the steel from j the eye with a magnet, but they had | at first been unsuccessful. After treatj ment he had complained of a blurred i vision, and later of pains at the back j of the eye. Because of the uncertainty i of vision, an agreement holding over ! the claim for compensation had beeu I entered into. 1 Dr. Stevenson had advised him to cease work as a turner, which he did. j After a term as engineer's assistant it I was suggested that he go back to his work at the lathe, but ho had refused | to do that out of fairness to his wife ! and child. | In reply to Mr Thomas, Robertson i said that while working at Anderson '.i, I Ltd., he used to get up at 6 a.m. and j work for his mother. | A Slight Scar. | Pr. 11. Wales, eye specialist, said that ho had examined Robertson at intervals. Tho injury was of some severity. To-day he had a slight scar on the right eye, which, ordinarily, would not affect the sight to a great extent. There was also a degree of divergence, so that he found it hard to concentrato both eyes on ono spot. Had this trouble been present before the accident ho could not have carried on bis work as a turner. Neither could he now carry on tha-t work, but he could do work not requiring close concentration of sight. It was not so much a question of strength of sight as of convergence. Disabilities in Right Eye. Dr. A. B. O'Brien said ho was quite satisfied about the plaintiff's bona fides. The feature of tho case, in his opinion, was the march of symptoms. Ha was at a loss to explain the fact that the man had certain disabilities in tho injured eye not present in tho other, though be was unable to assert definitely that these were due to tho injury. Unless the divergence in vision were remedied—and this could not be done with certainty—tho man was not fit to carry on his usual occupation. Evidence of Hysteria. Dr. 11. H. Barter, nerve specialist, said he had tested Robertson for nerv our trouble. He thought there was some nervous trouble, which it was 'reasonable to connect with the injury. Dr. John Stevenson, called for tha defence, said that he had found evidence of hysteria in Robertson's condition. Ho had advised a change of occupation so as to enable him to settle down. After this his general health had greatly improved. So soon as the worry of the case disappeared certain symptoms would disappear. If he wore his lenses ho should be quite comfortable in six weeks' time. Whether there had heen an accident or not Robertson would sooner or later have bad the symptoms related and would have had to take to glasses. This view of plaintiff's state was supported by Dr. James Gossip. He was, he. said, in partnership with Dr. Stevenson, and had discussed the matter with him. His ITonour: Supposing we squared this man up now, and he wore his lenses, as ordered, when could he be expected to resume his occupation? Dr. Gossip: Well, X can only guess. I should say within one to three months. Divergence of Opinion. l>r. Gossip went on to say that neither he nor Dr. Stevenson had noticed any haze on the lens of the eye, which Drs. Wales aDd O'Brien said they had ; diagnosed. Mr Lasceiles handed in a joint statement from Drs. O'Brien and Wales in which they estimated that twelve months would elapse before the neurasthenic elements would abate. Couit'6 Judgment. .Giving judgment, his Honour said that there was some difference of opin ion among the medical witnesses, but I the Court had come to the conclusion | that the actual injury suffered to the | eye was trivial. All eye injuries were J potentially serious, but, in this case, no septic condition had ensued. The principal condition of the eye was not atj tributable to the accident, for the I weight of evidence pointed to the fact that plaintiff would have had to wear glasses very soon. Unfortunately, his condition of hysteria had agitated his trouble. lu the opinion of the Court the agreement to hold over tho case for two years had been unfortunate— though probably done with the best of intentions—for it had had the effect of causing the neurasthenic condition of plaintiff to persist. From December 4th, 1929, to the present day, he would be awarded compensation at the weekly rate of £1 0s 4d two-thirds of the difference between his waives of £4 4s fid as storeman, and £■s 15s, which he had given as his average weekly earnings as a turner. For a further thirteen weeks, at fche end of