COMPENSATION CLAIM

Press, Volume LXXXVII, Issue 26393, 11 April 1951, Page 8

COMPENSATION CLAIM

HOSPITAL WORKER WITS TUBERCULOSIS CASE STATED TO COUBf OF APPEAL (New Zealand Press Associatie*) WELLINGTON, Aprils The application of the Tubercuiti - Act (1948) in relation to claims ÜBi the Workers’ Compensation Act I employees of hospital boards came before the Court of Appeal t its opinion by way of a case stated I the Judge of the Compensation Cos The Court consists of Mr Justice Gn son, Mr Justice Stanton and Mr Jma Hay. Patrick James Farrell, a porter, t Christchurch, has filed a claim aoia the North Canterbury Hospital Ba alleging that while working at c board’s sanatorium at Cashme t Christchurch, he had, before SepteJ. ber 20, 1948, contracted tubereulo I and that by virtue of the Tubereulo i Act (1948) compensation was peyil to him under the Workers’ Cotnpe sation Act (1922) as if the disease w a personal injury by accident arisi out of and in the course of his « ; ploymcnt. He was off work from S< s tember 20, 1948, to September 5,1» and claimed compensation for part that period, and also on the grou ‘ that the disease had left him pet anently unfit for heavy work wtthi • increased risk of infection. At the hearing of the action on I > vember 21. 1949. at Christchurcil, I > fore Judge Ongley, Farrell gi evidence snowing how his work « porter had brought him into conk ) with tubercular patients, but un cross-examination had admitted that became engaged at Easter, 1948. ta female patient of the sanatorium suit ■ ing from tuberculosis. ; In the case stated Judge Ong referred to a section of the Tuben i losis Act (1948) which pr.gvjfles ! where a person employed in cert i capacities by a hospital board eontn tuberculosis he shall be presumed, til the contrary be.prgved,’ to h contracted it while so employed, then stated that Feri»&4m not i to show that the tuberettfofft wt incapacitated him was caused by employment and that it Was probable that he contracted it from ’ female patient to whom he became I gaged. Accordingly, he could ' ceed in' his claim unless he recen the benefit of the presumption c tained in the act Further, the Tuberculosis Act (W did not come into force until April 1949, and the regulations made un the act until September 15. 1949, The questions for the opinion' of Court are whether, in this case, presumption applies for Farrell’s be fit, and if so from what date? After hearing legal argument Court reserved its decision.